oreillyrel

That's the problem. This Model Graphix magazine issue specifically warns readers, in writing in the beginning, not to cite it as a Macross source. No one is saying that all modeling magazines are unofficial sources--just the Model Graphix issues that specifically lists a disclaimer that it is unofficial for Macross. And a Wikipedia article.

If that error was being fixed after the post before mine, then why did that post mention "Re: the VF-X-3 and two modes: Shoji Kawamori Macross Design Works pg 66"? Especially since that page doesn't mention the VF-X-3 at all? I did, in my first two posts. http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...mp;#entry694213 http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...st&p=694257 I'm not the one that decided that Model Graphix #290 is not canon for Macross. Model Graphix #290 itself printed a disclaimer that it is not official. An earlier post in this thread incorrectly declared information from Wikipedia and the magazine as "canon." http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...st&p=694008 I only pointed out where the information comes from is not official. The burden of proof is upon those who declare a Model Graphix issue--with an "unofficial" disclaimer--and a Wikipedia article are sources for "canon" Macross information, not upon those that point out otherwise.

As Mr March said, this part of this thread originated with a claim that a source says something "in error" when it doesn't.

Yes, there is a possibility of a mistranslation. TiaS: Macross Plus pgs 66, 67 do not state that the image on Macross Perfect Memory is the VF-X-3, nor does it state that either the VF-X-3 or the VF-X-4 is "limited to fighter and gerwalk modes, only." Yes, I have checked the sources cited. Yes, there is much information that is misidentified as canon in that macrossroleplay page, but is not in the Compendium or any official source. Shoji Kawamori Macross Design Works pg 66 does not state that the VF-X-3 has two modes or has two modes only. It doesn't say anything about the VF-X-3. The claim that "both the VF-X-3 and VF-X-4 are limited to fighter and gerwalk modes, only" comes directly from the Japanese Wikipedia page and not an official source.

The issue here seems to be citing sources as canon when they are not, or asserting a source makes statements when it doesn't. Uh, Bolognese is the first ship listed by name in 2045 in the first episode of Macross 7 itself. It is referenced again more than once later in the series.

That's the dangerous part of speculation--assuming from what is unclear and jumping to conclusions. The official info on the VF-4 program say that it also has more than one prototype of varying degrees of VF-1 parts use. Stating "That'd be the VF-X-3" is jumping to a conclusion. There is no currently official source that states that it is "limited to fighter and gerwalk modes, only." There is a difference between stating that it can do at least two modes, and it stating it can do two modes, "only." Until then, people should be more careful of asserting that a source states more than it really does.

Actually, Macross Perfect Memory never labeled it as the VF-X-3. That's fan speculation. That 2-mode-only claim comes from the Wikipedia article.

Model Graphix #290 has a disclaimer on page 10 that says that materials that appears in Model Graphix but not in actual official material is solely the magazine's and unofficial. Essentially, anything that's only in the Wikipedia or only in Model Graphix is not canon.

Much of the green text is not actually canon information. They were added to the Japanese wikipedia article by an anonymous editor without sources. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ラ|...12540;ズ)

From my earlier post: I think I had made that distinction. From my first post in this thread: I mean, I complimented the most unique feature of the site in my first post. My original advice to others still stands. I look forward to the Macross II corrections/retractions described above.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. I wasn't implying that it was a private exchange or using that as an "excuse." I was just talking in general terms at first since I was replying to posters that were talking in general terms as well. The first poster was also referring to the non-Compendium information mixed in with the 99% accurate information derived from the Compendium. It's not the 99% of the information that is derived from the Compendium that has the issues. Lastly, please note that the constructive criticism is intended to be helpful. Your replies come across as making assumptions about my posts and resistant to constructive criticism, when all my replies addressed only the material and never criticized any person personally. Nevertheless, I thank you for making those corrections, and I hope more of the corrections are made as well as more care is taken on adding new material and checking old material.

Well, I did say specifically that it was the power/engine stats that were wrong, but that was somehow misinterpreted to mean length and displacement stats. I was first replying to another poster's general impression of accuracy, so I naturally first replied with general statements and drilled down later. For the Einstein, there are no listed companies in that book and linked image, compared to the New Macross Class elsewhere. There are no numerical figures for the VF-2SS in that book besides transformation times (unless 2 beam weapons and 2 missile pods count as numerical figures). I'm certain those particular RPG figures are not in the original Japanese release of Macross II, EB51 and the This is Animation book. And please make sure you look at the situation for my point of view. I first posted in this thread when another poster said this site had unique specs, so I cautioned the poster that many of those unique specs are fan-invented or incorrect. Then another poster said those specs are checked carefully against official stats, so it is quite apparent that there are impressions of the site that are not accurate. My concern is not that the Macross Mecha Manual is considered official, but that official and unofficial information are mixed together with no distinction, even though we're told that "when unofficial information is added, I make every effort to distinguish it." Judging by the comments earlier in this thread, there are people who are under the mistaken impression that all the information is expertly and carefully checked against official materials. It is because of those impressions that I posted, not because I shared those impressions. These comments aren't meant to take away from the work on the image coloring. They're just cautionary notes that the added info (like Mr. March said) are not official or completely accurate, since the comments in this thread indicate that this impression is out there.

http://macross.anime.net/wiki/Macross_Quarter Notice it doesn't list the power plant stuff that the Macross Mecha Manual incorrectly does. Macross 7 Animation Materials, pg. 160-170 Actually, you can just look at the link above for the Einstein. (It's page 168.) Notice it doesn't list the power plant stuff that the Macross Mecha Manual incorrectly does. Entertainment Bible.51 Super Dimension Fortress Macross, pg. 4-7, 97-99 Ironically, I'm being asked to provide proof of the negative. The burden of proof actually belongs to those who claim these stuff are official, when they are not in the official Japanese sources.

That's the issue. The Macross Quarter is not a New Macross Class vessel, but the Macross Mecha Manual says it has the same power plant manufacturers as a copy-and-paste from the New Macross Class stats. That's not from official materials for the Macross Quarter. You misunderstand which stats are unofficial. The Macross Mecha Manual's text descriptions of all of these ships has material that are not translated from official Japanese material for those ships. They list companies that aren't in the official Japanese material, instead of the ones that are. Unfortunately, the Macross Mecha Manual does have RPG stats that aren't from official Japanese sources, and even mistakenly credits them as coming from official Japanese sources. For example, the Macross Mecha Manual lists the VF-2SS as "Fighter Mode: wingspan variable 7.9 meter to 12.2 meters; height 5.2 meters; length 15.8 meters" and claims this is "Translated information taken from Entertainment Bible #51." These are all RPG stats and not listed in Entertainment Bible #51.

The problem with the Macross Frontier section is not that its incomplete, but it adds text that aren't in the official material. For example, the Macross Quarter copies in speculative material from the separate New Macross Class. The same goes for the Macross 7 additions--all the power/engine stats are incorrect or not from official sources. The Macross II information are not all taken from the Entertainment Bible #51, even though many of the stats are mistakenly attributed to that book. For example, the VF-2SS section has stats that are specifically but mistakenly credited to that book ("Translated information taken from Entertainment Bible #51"), when that book doesn't have those stats at all. They actually come from the flawed American RPG stats.