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.

At least in the case of the recent Macross 7, Macross Frontier, and Macross II additions, there are specs that are not from the Compendium or the official Japanese materials, but are not disinguished as such. In fact, some of the specs are misattributed to Japanese sources when they are not in the sources. Like Mr. March said earlier, this is an unofficial website. The trouble is that unofficial stats are mixed in with official stats, and are not properly distinguished.

Lots of great fan-colored images, but be careful on relying on the non-Compendium specs. Those non-Compendium specs has the same issues as those in mahq.net--they often fill in blanks in official materials with fan-invented or incorrect info.

It looks like that website made a mistake. The same website also put Hasbro's Transformers under "Toynami." http://toyfair08.asmzine.com/gallery/toynami/index2.html

There have been LD and DVD releases between those anniversaries. Except they haven't been. For the past year (even before the CM's and Aoshima announcements), there have been Toynami MPCs sitting unsold and repeatedly resolicited on Yahoo Japan. The only model that's generating any sustainable interest is the Shadow (because there were no Dark Legioss toys in the 1980s). Even then, neither CM's nor Aoshima has planned Dark Legioss toys. That's the real reason. Look at all those other 1980s robot shows that never got an American release and never got any toys for twenty years in Japan, only to get three or four companies selling toys in the last five years. Lots of 1980s kids in Japan are reliving their childhood instead of saving for retirement.

Look at Macross. There were toys and models with the official 20th Anniversary logo in 2001, a year before the actual anniversary. Look at Gundam. There were toys and models with the official 20th Anniversary logo almost two years before 1999. Vifam, Orguss, Galient, Gold Lightan, and more are all getting toys near their 25th anniversary after a two-decade drought, but it's not because of new animation. It's just that poor 1980s kids are now 2000s salarymen with disposable income for toys.

Okay, we have an old obscure 1983 real robot property that didn't even last one year, with a spinoff that was ignored by everyone except the diehard fans. There was nothing besides model kits and videos for over twenty years, and then suddenly we have toys (not models, but prebuilt figures) from no less than three different companies, including CM's. Why? Well, obviously, it must be that American remake of... Wait. American remake of Round Vernian Vifam? There was no American remake of Vifam. And yet, look at all the recent toys for this obscure 1983 real robot property: http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljlist.cgi?x=0...is=-2&Code= Don't let your myopia of anything unrelated to Robotech in Japan fool you. It's not just Mospeada. Mospeada is only getting the same old treatment that several other obscure 1980s robot shows are getting in the last five years. More than a dozen 1980s robot shows have finally gotten toys after about two decades of just model reissues (if that). Look at 1983's Orguss. Look at 1984's Galient. Look at 1985's Layzner. Look at 1987's Bubble Gum Crisis. Look at 1985's Megazone 23. (Suuure, it must be that Robotech movie that's getting Japanese Megazone fans all hot and bothered about toys...) Look at friggin' Gold Lightan. http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljlist.cgi?x=0...is=-2&Code= http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljlist.cgi?x=0...is=-2&Code= http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljlist.cgi?x=0...is=-2&Code= http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljlist.cgi?x=0...is=-2&Code= http://www.hlj.com/hljlist2/?range=descrip...p;GenreCode=All http://www.hlj.com/hljlist2/?range=descrip...p;GenreCode=All As SaveRobotech pointed out, the director of Beagle--the company making the Japanese 1/12 Mospeada toys--admitted his company wasn't even aware of Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles. The company is just made of Mospeada fans, who know that there is small but loyal following for Mospeada in Japan, just like there are for dozens of other 1980s robot shows. http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...st&p=478161 Remember, Harmony Gold didn't plan on releasing the Shadow Chronicles in 2007, one year before Mospeada's 25th anniversary. It was just that HG slipped its deadline of 2005 (Robotech's 20th anniversary) by two years. It's Shadow Chronicles' timing that's accidental.

Actually, there are two books that confirm that Shoji Kawamori worked on the "real world vehicles" of Diaclone as well. Those two books confirm that he co-designed Diaclone's Battle Convoy (Optimus Prime) and Fairlady Z (Bluestreak/Streak/Silverstreak and Prowl), and also state that he worked on several other designs after Diaclone went "real." On the Fairlady Z, he did the original design, and Ohno drafted it into a mechanically and commercially feasible toy. Here are those two books: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4063300862 http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4861760364

Just to clarify, you meant my katakana writing of Mardook and Gigamesh, right? No one else in this thread used katakana.

And as mentioned above, Manga's Macross II subtitles are wrong in this case, compared to Bandai Visual's Macross II DVDs and the actual spoken dialogue on both. Subtitles are not perfect, and it's wise not to assume so.

Yeah, well, we're talking about indirect homages to Japanese pronunciations of myths originally written in Sumerian, so the English Wikipedia isn't much help. The best that the English Wikipedia can do is link us to the Japanese article: English Wikipedia article See "in other languages" section in the left column which goes to: Japanese Wikipedia article The bottom line is that the mythical Marduk is written one way, but Mardook in Macross II is written another way. That may be a reason for using the wrong spelling at first, but not a good reason for hanging onto it once told of the official spelling. It's definitely not a reason to "correct" someone who was already using the official spelling by telling that person the wrong spelling instead--as one did in replying to the very first post on this thread. Since when did an out-of-print overseas RPG carry more weight than Bandai Visual and the Macross II creators themselves? That's even further from the source than Manga Entertainment's release, which is already wrong in this particular instance. It's similar to how Jenius and Macross are spelled (and, likewise, pronounced) differently from their inspirations ("genius" and "Macbeth"), but Global is spelled like the English terms "global"--it's fine to have one direct homage, but three or even more direct homages might be pushing the suspense of disbelief.