Talk:Late Universal Century

i don't think the earth federation was declining i think they were not focus upon

they didn't reconize part of side 2 as the zansacre empire

the earth federation was in the zanscare empire wars from the very begining.

on of those reasons was of there economy the earth federation felt that if they could fix there economy they could pervent more zanscares

g saviour's not canon the earth federation was force to let zanscare have it independence earth federation was not in decline it had difficulty controling its colonys

G savour is not canon it was remove from offical production list from a official web site they recently started giving offical production there own websites http ://www.gundam.channel.or.jp/program/)

According to GundamOfficial, G Gundam is not part of U.C. time line, where as Victory Gundam is listed as part of the U.C. time line.

the earth federation could fight the way they wanted to it was due to the econamey it in some sources and it had severe red tape do to funding why do think colony riot moble suit was inveted it was due to fuding

G-Saviour and beyond
Gundam Halo, as you say, it wasn't mentioned in Gundam Encylopedia, but it wasn't mention as non-canon either. And technically, those that was filmed are canon. How can this be leaning to non-cannon more? --Bronx01 17:47, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

it was not mention in the timeline section of gundam fact file and when they had the opportunity to do G saviour they just did original gundam or the one year war agian that is classic way to tell people that they decanonize it by no longer mentioning it and also on ja wikipedia and gundam ja wiki they had not caught up but they lean torwords that it is not canon.

G-Saviour is unfortunately canon. While it's depressing to think about until Sunrise issues a clear statement otherwise, or makes a new animated work that contradicts it we have to included its events in the canon timeline. I personally wouldn't mind having G-Saviour and Victory Gundam just go away, they are the period in which both the technological and intellectual levels of mankind in universe and the production values and story writing out of universe entered the Dark Ages. Sadly we do have to acknowledge them. With luck maybe someday Gaia Gear will get an animated work and then we can finally burry Shakti Kareen alive, but until then we have to put up with the unpleasant side of the UC.

Cerano Agamemnon 15:31, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

g-saviour is not canon
G-saviour is not canon and ill' give you four reasons why

1. both japanese and english websites were removed

2. it was not mention into of most two recent gundam fact files

3. in the second most recent gundam fact when they end victory gundam they went back to the one year war

4.G saviour wasen't showen on the offical project list of the old gundam website

heres the crown jewel that proves i was right and you were wrong

[http://www.mahq.net/rants/mailbag/mailbag3.htm Here is what they had to say. (It's the Second question, here)]

if you say it on the old english that it's listed as canon they forgot to remove it from canon list partly it mainite at the time the old website was noteable for extreme lazyness case and point forgot to complete the gundam seed destiney project to english they never complete it an to this day they haven't


 * Gundam Halo, I wish you would show us this "official memo" on Sunrise removing G-Saviour from continuity. All you've shown us is that Sunrise is doing a poor job of pretending it was never released. --Zeikfried 06:00, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, no one wants to mention G-Saviour because it was so bad. Even though Sunrise hasn't listed it or made mention of it, all television works are considered canon by sunrise. Gaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 06:21, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, Gundam halo: Think about the argument you're making all the way to the logical conclusion. If we deleted everything related to G-Saviour on the basis that it isn't canon, by Sunrise's own policy we'd be forced to delete every side-story and expanded universe material that hasn't been animated. Now, you could make the argument that Sunrise hasn't gone to the extremes with other works that it has with G-Saviour, but it would still play out the same way since your argument is about canonicity. We'd be forced to remove a bunch of stuff, with the added burden of the editors having to decide what information to keep and what to not keep. We'd have to comb through every article and then have a vote on what to keep and what not to keep. It'd take us a looooooooooooooooooooooong time to finish something like that, instead of doing something more productive like actually adding useful information. —AscendedAlteran 08:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

no no it is not canon look at it talk and reason im just both g saviour sites got delete and removed and there lazy the never delete probley iy was so minute they never even complete gundam seeds detineys page on the old site next time read my reasons and not assume

I am reading your reasons, Gundam halo, BUT...those are things that are totally unrelated to the canonocity of a series. G-Saviour's canon status completely relies on Sunrise (who distributes the Gundam franchise) to say, "G-Saviour does not exist in this timeline". GundamOfficial not updating their site since 2007 is either a result of laziness, or that Bandai of America forgot to shut down or update the site, because theres a redirect to the english 00 site...which hasn't been updated since 2009. However, Sunrise licensed G-Saviour as a part of the Gundam franchise. This is separate from Gaia Gear, which Tomino specifically wrote as being an alternate universe setting, therefore it's not canon.

Back to the point, a website being taken down has nothing to do with G-Saviour being canon. The movie is at least 10 years old and it isnt surprising that the website doesn't exist. Sunrise is still distributing the movie (I think). So in short, the proof you're using is totally unrelated to whether G-Saviour is canon or not.Gaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 18:53, August 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * gundam halo's going to edit it back, just saying. This wiki seemed to reach a community agreement to keep G-Saviour, but he/she's just going to do whatever he/she wants. Just protect this page for now to prevent this on-going edit wars. --Bronx01 (talk|contribs) 19:06, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bronx. This just needs to be locked or something. I doubt virtually anyone on this wiki actually liked G-Saviour, but we aren't running a wiki on personal opinion. Personally I'd love to decanonize everything after F-91, but that doesn't change anything. I'll be damned though if the Late UC page is going to cite Victory Gundam as canon and not G-Saviour. Cerano Agamemnon 20:01, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to just give them a month ban or something? Kit-chan 20:36, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to just give them a month ban or something? Kit-chan 20:36, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with Kit-chan on this one. Gundam halo is just going to keep editing the page unless we do something, and locking the page doesn't really help anything when an editor actually has a useful piece of information to add to the page or even simply correct spelling/grammar/punctuation but can't because we locked it to stop one person from messing it up. A ban seems to be the best way to get the point across that edits based solely on personal opinion will not be tolerated, and still allow people with useful contributions to actually contribute. —AscendedAlteran 21:13, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think I already banned him once for like a few weeks. No one's actually going to touch the G-Saviour page so I'll lock that down. The Late UC page I'll have to see what I can work to see if I can ban gundam halo from editing that specific page.Gaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 21:22, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, if he does it again, ban him for a year. A few weeks --> A month --> a year, then if he's still got the tenacity to come back, permaban. Or if you're feeling more 3-strike-policy, ban him after the month if he tries anything. Kit-chan 08:10, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I locked down G-Saviour's page as admin only. Can't believe we have to put in this much work for one user -_-Gaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 21:27, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think Gundam Halo's actually right. MAHQ does back it up, now while wonderful MAHQ isn't the do all end all, however the Japanese version of our own Wiki also classifies it as "Alternate UC" both in its notes on canon and in its timeline [Google Auto-translated version] Note the last paragraph in "Authentic history" and the "Other season" segment of the Season section. G-Saviour is also not just absent, but conspicuously absent from GundamOfficial. GundamOfficial clearly did stop getting updates after SEED Destiny, but even the "Side Stories" list at the bottom of the "Other Works" page mentions things such as Gaia Gear fails to mention G-Saviour. So yeah, sadly apparently they continue to acknowledge flying space motorcylcle battleships over G-Saviour and Gaia Gear. Cerano Agamemnon 16:44, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least, the G Savior information here, should be moved over to the G Savior page, for posterity. Hate to see the information gone just like that.

~ Azkaiel 16:49, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * GundamOfficial clearly did stop getting updates after SEED Destiny, but even the "Side Stories" list at the bottom of the "Other Works" page mentions things such as Gaia Gear fails to mention G-Saviour. So yeah, sadly apparently they continue to acknowledge flying space motorcylcle battleships over G-Saviour and Gaia Gear. What do you mean by that? I still found it here. And unfortunely, so far all claim that G-Saviour is uncanon are all coming from fan. They do claim that Sunrise announce it but nobody, not even single soul, can provide proof. And while our Japanese is more reliable, it too are editted by fellow fans.

And once again, I need to remind you that there's no Japanese word for canonical. So unless you can find official words removing it from UC timeline, it is as official as any animate work. Kuruni 18:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Kuruni don't get me wrong. I would like it to remain canon. Your note about it still being listed is indeed valid, I didn't see that page I was refering to the "Side Stories" section of this one. Your example does more distinctly place it in a timeline along with Gaia Gear, implying the canonicity of both. There may be no Japanese word for canonical per se, but the equivalent statement exists. Either way I would rather it remain in canon, but I think based on the MAHQ note pointed out by Gundam Halo and the Japanese wiki that it may not be. Either way I think we need to actually look at the Japanese resources sites. I agree that we can't read Japanese, but I think that translation software while far from perfect should be adequete to confirm or deny this. I think we need citation on this matter either way. If we can't find it I think we should as a community contact Sunrise and ask directly, or have a user who is able to attend a Bandi or Sunrise panel at a convention ask and have a video recording. Point is it's not just about consensus, it's about accuracy. Therefore we could all be wrong and Gundam Halo could be right. It's a possibility we need to acknowledge. Either way I'm not editing any page on the matter one way or another until I have very concrete evidence. Cerano Agamemnon 20:00, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea Cerano, but would anyone from Sunrise even want to mention G-Saviour to anyone. It's like if you had a giant scar somewhere from an injury, but it slowly healed over time and no one could tell that it existed. That's basically G-Saviour, it hurt Sunrise initially but now everyone's forgotten about it. I don't think the directors or Sunrise had officiality in mind when creating G-Saviour. It basically stradles the line between canon and alternate universe. There is the possibility that the whole issue may never be solved, and that no matter what's happened, despite what Gundam Halo's said about the evidence of Sunrise's lack of attention towards G-Saviour, or that we're following Sunrise policy of all animated works (including Victory, sorry Cerano) being part of the official UC timeline, and G-Saviour being in the odd position of being a live-action animated work, and also given that it's the only live action Gundam work, Sunrise doesn't have a policy for those as far as I see it. Also note that G-Saviour isn't (as far as we know) anything like Gaia Gear, where Tomino specifically wrote it as an alternate universe setting, or like Zeta: A New Translation, where Tomino again rewrote some parts of the original series.

That being said, this may have to come to a consensus. Given that Sunrise may or may not want to comment on something like G-Saviour, a sorespot for Gundam fans, we might never get an answer. Though if it does come to consensus, I'd like all the users to take into consideration both the reasons why and why not G-Saviour is canon. Like I said, G-Saviour being a live action/CG animated work, and given that nothing's been mentioned about the movie for a while, official or otherwise, this debate could rage on for ages.Gaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 04:30, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I agree and Sunrise is a corporation, even in a public setting a company of their size and nature doesn't handle things in ways that are the most attractive to the consumer. It's also true that G-Saviour is indeed a sore spot that they don't like to discuss, but Gundam X is for them too, so there's no accounting for taste. Either way, you're right it isn't the most readily availible information otherwise we wouldn't be having these debates. I agree, if none of us can prove things concretely enough consensus is best, don't want to argue, just don't want to be the one in the wrong either. And yes I only wrote V Gundam out of my own interpertation of the UC, then again in my own little mind G-Saviour never existed either. Cerano Agamemnon 07:39, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

kuruni edit the late uc page without permission so im editing it back ok


 * And who give you permission? Seriously, nobody going to do anything with this guy? Kuruni 17:58, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Kuruni, if we ever find out that he's right, then we'll do nothing unless he makes bad edits with no effort. If he's wrong and continues to edit the page, we'll ban him. Gundam halo, you edited the page, also without permission, so don't do that. I've restricted this page to admin only because of you. G-Saviour is listed on sunrise's website but I don't see where it's listed as an alternate UC story. That points to The MAHQ interview was in 2005, GundamOfficiall lists G-Saviour as a official animated work (even though its a live action/CGI film...) so in the end we have two conflicting sources and Sunrise without a peep of it. On a side note, this page somehow acts like Gaia Gear is canon, and it isn't intended to be canon at all. I'm going to put a new header that says "alternate events in timeline" or something. I'll put the synopses for Gaia Gear there, and most likely G-Saviour. Gaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 22:14, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Putting G-Saviour in the Alternate Timeline section might be our only viable option at the moment. With Sunrise giving it the silent treatment, there's nothing else we can do really. —AscendedAlteran 03:20, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much set on putting G-Saviour as alternate UC with Gaia Gear, but Gundam Halo, if you have any issues, please use the talk pages to ask questions and improve your grammarGaeaman 788 - The sign of Zeta leads to a dead end 03:54, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Gaeaman, will the UC203 onwards timeline be placed in the G-Savior article, for posterity ? Seems like a bit of a shame, to have that bit of information gone.

~ Azkaiel 04:00, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine if there's either a link to an "Alternate UC" page or simply have Alternate UC section at the end of the timeline like on the Japanese wiki. That way it flows similarly but has the addendum that it may or may not be canon for this timeline. Even with "official" and "unofficial" somethings are canon, some arent and it doesn't make much sene. Suffice to say the canon status is "ambiguous". Cerano Agamemnon 04:54, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with remark it's events as "ambiguously canon". Leave it for readers to judge, rather than classify it ourselves. That being said, Gundam halo shouldn't be allow to edit anything relate to UC article. Removing other's edit is one thing, but acting like mod and claim that people must get his permission to edit is ugly. Kuruni 05:43, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did he say that part about getting his permission to edit ? ~ Azkaiel 05:56, August 16, 2011 (UTC)