Talk:Elfen Lied/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Episode list

Hello. Does anybody own the DVDs and know what ADV's official titles for the episodes are? I made the english episode titles correspond with tv.com's listing (here) but I see somebody has reverted to the old titles. I think it would be most accurate to list the titles as they appear on the dvd, rathing than from some website's that may just be fansubber's translations of the japanese or german. - Phorque 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

At the conclusion of Elfen Lied, there are a number of unanswered aspects about the story:

1. What are the origins and purpose of the Diclonius?
2. Was Lucy the first Diclonius? Several characters refer to Lucy as the queen, but whether or not this is true, and what implications it has for the early history of the Diclonius are left obscure.
3. Why do the president of the secret organization and his son both have horns on their head?

Secret organization? Can we give it a name?

Hi, Phorque here. Firstly: not all of these are unanswered. Make sure you've read the manga AND watched the anime before labling these as loose ends in the plot. There's also the chance you may have misunderstood. I myself have watched the anime, but only read up to chapter 19 of the manga. I don't even know if loose ends in the plot have a place in the article, at least, not as an entire section unto themselves.

Here are some things I do know:

1. The diclonius are a "genetic defect" of sorts (some kind of next step in evolution) that usually dies out after one generation. This defect, however, can be passed on like a virus to affect somebody else's offspring (for example: Director Kurama).
2. Lucy is the first diclonius with the ability to reproduce, thus making her "their queen" (meaning she could populate the earth with reproduction capable diclonius).
3. The president and his son (i think) somehow infected themselves with the Diclonius virus in order to become the "kings" of the diclonius or something to that effect.

I, SwordKirby537, have not read the complete manga but I have heard that from people who have read it a few answers to those questions. The manga continues quite aways past where the anime ends, thus expanding on the story quite a bit. NOTE: Please forgive me if my answers are off, since I have never read it myself and don't have anyway of proving these statements, other than that I have heard them multiple times from those who have completed the manga. If any of these answers are off, then please, do correct them.

1. I have heard that the Diclonius came to be about 1000 years ago when aliens did experiments or bred with humans (can't remember which). I have infact read in the manga that Kurama states that "Diclonius are a new species chosen by God", which implies that thier purpose is, infact, to replace humans.
2. Lucy is not the first Diclonius, but I think she is the first one that can reproduce, like Phorque said.
3. I think that the Director and his son have horns as a genetic triat found in their family's bloodline that dates back to some time during the samurai era. I am unaware of why their family has this trait and how its connected to traditional Diclonius.

Hi Phorque here. I have read up to chapter 40 of the manga and discovered that the Director and his son are both from a long line of Diclonius whose potency has been watered down over generations by interbreeding with humans. The director's son explains this before he is beheaded by Lucy (this is omitted in the anime). The manga seems to explain everything but we'll need some japanese-speaking person to explain it all to us as only 40 chapters have been scanlated into english. -Phorque 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How is nobody mentioning the ending? The symbolism of the broken clock that they keep showing throughout, starting up again, and the music box stopping. Also, the shadow at the doorway (Lucy?) AshTM 07:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I can answer about diclonius one they are not a different species from humans they are humans just like us just slightly different two neither god nor aliens had nothing to do with them it was all nature. Kuramas little chosen by god quote is merely xenophobia acting not the facts. Lucy in the manga said to kakuzawa after she killed him that he was delusional and living in a self fabricated fantasy world that diclonius are not a different species they are humans only born with horns and a unique power like x mens mutants in a way most people due to xenophobia cannot accept them as human when they are human same with diclonius. That word diclonius was probably invented by kakuzawa in order to segregate them form there fellow man. The institutions and the cruel treatment was probably kakuzawas way of conditioning them as killing machines and so they have no hope of existing together with there fellow man.

Images

We don't really need three images for this article. I think just a description is fine, so we should keep just one.

• Image:Elfen_Lied_ep2_Vectors.jpg
• Image:Elfen_Lied_ep4_Lucy.jpg
• Image:Elfen_Lied_ep4_Nyuu.jpg

— Kieff | Talk 07:28, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Do we have a burning need not to have three images? They don't float down past the text, and they all illustrate something different. I wanted to show that Nyuu/Lucy is rendered differently when a different personality is dominant, and what the vectors look like. I think all three of the pictures add something. --grendel|khan 09:51, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Well, guess not. Let them there then. I fixed the images, btw. — Kieff | Talk

I must agree that the article is a bit cluttered with images, several of which really aren't necessary to illustrate any points in the article. At the very least, I think someone should consider alternating which sides the images appear on, so they're not just in a huge column. --InShaneee 20:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You can probably just create one image and combine the 3 faces together to show all 3 in one, eliminating the clutter and retaining what you want from them. you can photoshop them in like 5 minutes, I'll do it soon.Tik 16:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics

The lyric to the opening theme song seems to be not original. [1] ← seems to indicate that the lyrics come from a different source. Also, the first part: "Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam, Et lingua eius loquetur indicium" seems to be Psalm 37:30 in Latin after some Google searching. Would be nice if someone could help identify where the lyric comes from (or maybe it's mentioned on the OST CD album credits). In an earlier edit, a reference to "Beatus Vir" was erased, but I'm not sure why. --69.214.227.51 09:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: apparently this guy seems to know much more what he's talking about → [2]

Update 2 by 69.214.227.51 19:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC): The original soundtrack album booklet states that Lilium was made just for the album (lyric and melody), which makes the one posting at the first link I gave a liar.

Update by PS4FA: The various pieces from which the lyrics are drawn are apparently all to be found on the album 'Chant' by the monks of the Santo Domingo de Silos Monastery.

That Cebuano 'translation' really does not look like a translation at all. AFAICT, those are lyrics (with a few modifications) to a song titled "original sigbin". See http://www.juniorkilat.com/music/lyrics/sigbin.htm. While I am not fluent in Latin and cannot make any comments on the validity of the cebuano words as a translation of the Latin text, I am fairly fluent in both English and Cebuano and the Cebuano words do not match the English words at all. --Deranged Coder 22:47:23, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Is it even legal to post the entire lyrics here? These songs are copyrighted and so are their lyrics. --129.97.84.62 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be. Fair use is a tricky thing. --maru (talk) contribs 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since they copied these psalms, I think it's okay. They can hardly have any claims to those now, can they? On the other hand, if we were to include the music, we'd probably not be in the clear. Shinobu 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Elfen Lied (revision)

I moved this from my talk page, where Sir Louis made a comment about my removal of his comments.

I added a few other valid points to the sub-topics line of this definition, state what you feel was not objective about it. (?)

Objectivity is not the issue, but presenting one opinion as fact and no contrary opinions, or needlessly noting subjective appreciations. A copy of the paragraphs you modified, with bold indicating your changes/additions that I find objectionable:

"Elfen Lied is unpleasant to watch. The moral, if there is one - deals with human evolution, which doesn't offer much room for character building, with the constant merry go round of shallow and senseless moments, and tragedy, brutality and resolve. The main drive of the dicloniuses is the propagation of their superior traits through the destruction of the human race. This homicidal drive manifests around the 3rd year of the diclonius's life. It seems that dicloniuses do not consider normal Homo sapiens "human", and most of the time they show a complete lack of empathy towards non-mutants.

The story also deals with the issues of psychological trauma and repressed memories, as well as moral insanity (psychopathy) as a result of absent unconditional, parental love."

"Is unpleasant to watch", I'm sure you see this, is completely subjective. I don't find it pleasant to see little girls being torn apart, even if they're just animated characters, but I didn't Elfen Lied unpleasant (except in the same sense I found it "unpleasant" to watch Schindler's List, for example — also full of senseless killing). I see you've reverted my revert and inserted "can". Of course, objectively, anything "can be unpleasant to watch". But this is not the place for subjective appreciation, and the modal verb only barely masks the POV (it works as a weasel word).

Then also, "the moral - if there is one" makes it obvious that you don't think there's one, and that you think there should be a (constructive) morale. I'm wondering what your views are about human evolution, but I won't open that can of worms here.

Likewise, if you believe character building is lacking, state a source or discuss criticism here in this talk page with at least a few viewers. Compare Elfen Lied's character development with that of other anime/manga, with other similar stories, etc.

The "constant merry go round of..." is plainly personal POV and, if I may say so, reads like a movie trailer ad.

PS I just saw you changed that. Reads better, but go on.

Then, what is "moral insanity"? Does parental love have to be present and unconditional for people not to turn into psychopaths? And how does that follow from the series? If character building is so lacking, how can you analyze the behavior of characters and not only diagnose a mental disorder but also its cause? Again, I'd suggest to get some knowledgeable viewers and discuss the issue here.

Opinionated criticism can be found elsewhere. You are free to look for reviews and link to them from the External links section. You can even write a review yourself.

I'm reverting the article again. If you don't agree, I suggest requesting comments from other users before doing anything else. I understand you're new to WP and hope you don't take offense from my comments and opinions. That's what discussion pages are for.

It's OK to do multiple edits. You can sign your posts here using four tildes ~~~~. --Pablo D. Flores 10:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That was indeed opinionated, instead of making another revision, as this is my first go at highly interpretive definitions, a few comments: The series does in fact touch on the link between dsy-social psychopathy and parental influences, (note Nyu/Lucy's relationship to Kouta, Mariko and Nana's relationship to Kurama and their homicidal tendencies evaporating in his presence). This implies a historical - or at least predominantly historically (mistakenly attributed to ingrained instinct) rooted cause for their hatred of humans. Note that in episode 13, it is revealed that Lucy did in fact possess the ability to introspect and empathize all along - in other words, have a conscience.

As for "is unpleasant to watch". Well, this is of course, technically, subjective, but the nauseating, constant roller-coaster of physical and psychological violence, tearful resolve, and odd quiet moments of reason and conversation between the characters deserves to be touched on as well. Done once, this is digestible, but it is constant throughout the series, and is genuinely nauseating. This is more of an observation about story direction and plot writing, rather than the actual themes and story themselves. It is very good Sci-Fi otherwise.

So, unless you feel I am somehow incorrect about any of this for inclusion into a definition, then I'd suggest having you write the revision making light of these things, or I can have a more dedicated go at it again.

PS: As a side note, something of a logical error, why did they arm their guards with submachine guns instead of high-powered assault rifles (seen in one scene making short work of a dyclonius), surely they were aware low-powered pistol cartridges were totally ineffective against them from tests? Also, in later episodes guards are seen fruitlessly shooting at them again. --Louis

I highly recommend reading NPOV as this should clear up where Pablo-Flores is coming from. In fact, the first paragraph in the sub-topics section of the article is bordering on speculative, and could possibly be flagged as not being of a NPOV. Observations, such as your comment about the elements of the show being nauseating are very subjective, and subjective material does not make a good encyclopedia article. If you read a lot of reviews of this show on the web, you'll find that people are very divided in terms of their opinion of this show. The majority of opinions is that it is brilliant and one of the (if not the) best anime to have debuted in 2004. Once again, that last statement I made is subjective and should not be included in the article. --Js2756 13:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Replying to Louis (backwards)... Well yes, it is obviously a mistake to employ machine guns. Besides assault rifles, I'm wondering why they didn't have electric shock weapons or something like that (unless Lucy can manipulate electromagnetic fields too). The massacre at the very beginning is truly senseless for this reason. Bando is a bit exaggerated too.

I didn't feel the series as a roller coaster. For me it was more like a typical "everything seems fine but something horrible's going on" plot. Again, it was not nauseating for me, in the sense that I never wanted to turn it off and leave. I could go on and on about how my opinion differs from yours, but that's precisely why I didn't like the inclusion of such emotional language in the article. The very first paragraph says the series is full of gore and psychological violence, and then expands on it. I think that's enough. Would you describe World War II as "a bloody struggle that took countless innocent lives", when it is obvious from any accurate historical description that it was precisely that? A story about children being abused, maimed, killed, and turned into test subjects may obviously be nauseating for some, of morbid interest for others, anthropologically interesting for others, and many other things. That's why I'd like to link to plot reviews, if there are any.

You are absolutely right that the series touches on parental influence; in fact, it's a recurring theme. I'd rather describe the facts, though, and avoid psychiatric diagnoses. Unless you're in that field, of course.

Hm. "I'm wondering why they didn't have electric shock weapons or something like that"- but don't electric shock weapons require close range contact, exactly the domain Lucy excelled in? I personally found myself thinking, "Grenades! Grenades and flamethrowers! Her arms can't block being roasted alive or gassed!" --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Some ideas (to be discussed):

• The series jumps quickly from moments of relative peace, dialogue and normal interaction between characters, to sequences of gruesome physical violence or psychological torture, sometimes alternating with flashbacks.
• The diclonius characters show, at times, an ability to empathize with normal humans, though they seem to respect only the lives of certain people. (describe parental relationships)

I have to go now. I'll be back soon... --Pablo D. Flores 14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Great points all around. I understand that this is an encyclopedia article, and the goal should be to describe it as objectively possible, but I definitely propose some kind of sub-section with "Observations" or "Logical Errors" or something of the sort.

It is hailed as being a very good anime probably because of the resolve that underlies the constant shift between sense and senselessness, humanity and inhumanity, which all characters seem to inwardly understand but instead act like monsters with an internal logic that isn't developed by the writers, tasking the viewer to guess what that is. So it draws people in to figure these distorted characters out. The problem is the show is otherwise filled with so many contradictions it loses credibility.

If Lucy isn't carelessly butchering anyone in her path, Nana is bursting into tears every three minutes. Why they do this is supposedly instinct, but it isn't, as evidenced later in the show. Even the clearly twisted Mariko is fully developed psychologically, yet requires being wired with explosives in order to prevent her from killing everyone around her. On top of this we are expected to - which inevitably we do, given the strong human/inhuman contrasts and because the main characters are not (somehow) inwardly the monsters they have made themselves to be through their actions, the viewer becomes frustrated trying to make any sense of it. So are they creators of the series intending to confound and confuse here? Is this simply an exploitation film? Or are the creators just trying to drive anyone insane who tries to understand it? :-) --Louis

As much as I would like to discuss the ins and outs of various topics, Wikipedia just isn't the place to do it. I can't imagine what a lot of articles would be like if everybody put their two cents into the article. Elfen Lied is just one show that has a lot of people divided, but other articles like Neon Genesis Evangelion would, in all likelihood, turn into all out chaos if people were allowed to post what they thought on the show in the article. --Js2756 13:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Louis, honestly I didn't experience any of the confusions you're going through here, as other people have pointed out. Anything as inherently flammable as 'observations', or even worse, 'logical errors' should most likely be kept out of wikipedia. This isn't anything as simple as two plus two equals five. There are plenty of other forums to discuss subjectuve flaws of the show.

--Tarranon 07:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Logical errors are still subjective. Through my experience with humans, I've learned that we operate on a few basic rules heavily influenced by instinct. As you may know, even a basic set of instructions could create unimaginable complexity. Take for example Langton's Ant. We start of random and chaotic until we find a pattern in a single direction. For Diclonii, it's killing people. And just when you think things make sense... well, go to the Langton's Ant page and see what happens when you put three together. As Socrates said, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." The only time logical errors should be put in an article is if the errors had some sort of major influence, such as death threats to the director (like the ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion). Or maybe in a special category like Trivia. ElijahD 13:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

'Nyuu' or 'Nyu'?

Ok, I changed "Nyuu" to "Nyu", and added more context as discussed here, I hope it's a good, objective, compromise. --Louis

I just edited the above for format. Louis, you can (should) sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). You write those in the edit window, and they are turned into your username and date-time. The indenting is done using colons (:), one per indent level. See the editing help for details.

I believe the Japanese transcription was にゅう, usually romanized nyuu or nyū (with a long u sound), but it may be simply pedantic to reproduce such nuances given that we're talking about a random, nonsense word. I say let's keep "Nyu" throughout the article, unless someone objects... --Pablo D. Flores 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Most fansubbers subbed it as "nyuu" so I'd say we should have "nyū" to emphasize the long u. not just "nyu". Phorque 11:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Phorque. There is an actual pronunciation difference between "Nyu" and "Nyū." I suppose the biggest problem with this, however, is having to specify the diacritic. "uu" is a way to specify the long-u sound in regular ASCII text, though "ū" is preferred when diacritics are available such as in Unicode. --Kuronekoyama 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lilium

I added some information to the section dealing with the opening song, but for some reason that was removed. Why is that? My information is accurate. Lilium is not released in a full-version, only a short 1 minute 30 second version is officially available. DarkJedi2 on the Rizon IRC network proved how incomplete it is by making several extended versions using parts of the song he obtained in various ways. His mixes are flawless, and prove how much of the song is actually missing from the version we all know. His last version (his 8th release) is 5 minutes and 38 seconds long, and is titled "Lilium ~Extended DarkJedi Edition - Final Mix~", which he describes as a tweaked version of his 7th mix. I believe this is important information. If people want to hear what the near-complete version sounds like, this is the only person who's worth talking to about this. He is often available in #elfenlied on Rizon, he is an op there. Please add this information back in. Thanks. -- (posted by anonymous IP user)

You might try reading the article history for a change:

13:00, August 18, 2005 Pablo-flores m (rv edits by 219.89.91.177 to last version by Voievod (unsourced, non-notable, possibly vanity))

• Non-notable: it's got quite next to nothing to do with the series. It's like giving an extra section or the "Ride of the Valkyries" as played in Apocalypse now, or elaborating that various uses of parts of Beethoven's 9th Symphony are actually only excerpts from an hour-long symphony.
• Vanity: For all we know, you could be this "DarkJedi2" person you speak of. Especially with that sweet-talking.
• Unsourced: Let's face it, saying that some nick on IRC did something is dubious at best. "DarkJedi2" as the name of a source is slightly better than "hansolo42". --towo 09:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Elfen Lied OST does indeed include an extended version of Lilium, entitled Lilium ~saint version~. This one is sung by the GRIFFIN Chorus, an all-male ensemble. I'm unable to find a listing for the OST itself, but from what I can piece together from the official Japanese website, it seems to have shipped as a part of the Limited Edition volume 1 in Japan. ADV makes no mention of it on their series page, but several enthusiast groups, most notably Nipponsei, have offered up a digital version of the CD over various P2P networks. -- Halbyrd 09:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This DarkJedi figure didn't try to produce a full version or anything... he just made a remix of several separate versions. Shinobu 07:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kill or Reproduce?

I was thinking that perhaps, given that we've already established a spoiler warning, we should discuss this series' one unfortunately damning loop-hole. I'm not very good at modifying these articles, so it'd probably be better for someone else to take over it however. Of course, if someone could explain this to me, I'd be delighted as well.

It seems to me, that in the series, Diclonius are supposed to become homicidal around age 3. To indulge, seems like a genetic defect as a result of radical mutation, that they become predisposed to psychopathy. Anyways, here's the point. If they have a natural drive to kill humans, but they need to infect humans to reproduce, then which is it? It seems if they're driven to kill humans constantly, they eliminate their breeding stock, but if they merely spread the virus, I could understand xenophobia being a motivator into containing them, but it certainly wouldn't lead to the "demise of the human race" any more than simply evolving would. The way they speak of it, Diclonius would simply kill everyone they could, but then how do they reproduce? But if they simply reproduce, why would they need to kill so much and be such a threat? As they mature, do they become selective about who they kill and who they infect? Is it on a whim? This seems to be such a large contradiction in the storyline, I'm surprised a bigger issue hasn't been made of it.

They make a big deal in the series both that Diclonius are natural murderers, and that they need to use people to spread, and the points cancel each other out. Should this be made a point of? Or am I simply making a geeky rambling? I apologize if I'm merely cluttering the discussion page with my confusion.

The way I saw it was that the diclonius aren't inherently murderous excepting for the fact that they possess supernatural powers from an age where reason or value of human life isn't naturally inherent. Almost every single diclonius that showed sadistic tendencies was psychologically tortured from a very early age. The researchers, in justification for their inhumane treatment of them, probably put forth the information that the diclonius would kill them, if given the chance. At least, that is my take on it. --Tarranon 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The above sounds just OK. Besides, normal human children before a given age are, as everybody knows, rather sadistic in their treatment of animals; they don't recognize them as living, suffering beings, but tend to treat them as toys. I can see the same thing when it comes to the relationship between young dicloniuses and humans. There's also the possibility that dicloniuses are a case of dead-end evolution. Most mutations are lethal, and maybe this is one. They could be ultimately destined to exterminate the human race and then die off due their own competitive success. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Also note that Lucy is able to reproduce naturally. Hence, it isn't out of the question for her to kill most humans, as she only really needs a male to reproduce (ie. Kouta). Also, Nana does not have a homocidal streak to her. She never actually kills anybody, and is only after Lucy because Kurama wanted her to go after her and because of their history. Nana is a case in point that diclonius are not inherently hostile towards humans. -Js2756 20:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this all makes sense. Still, whether it's a predisposition or not, I can imagine the terrible danger of a child with such lethal abilities. It would seem nearly impossible for a normal relationship. Virtually all relationships between a parent and a child involve some anger towards the parent for whatever reason. This is normally merely a tantrum or something to be dealt with, but what if upsetting the child could result in death or dismemberment? Or even if the child simply begins to do so out of amusement. By the time the child has killed or torn the limbs off someone, it would seem that the time for discipline and chastising has been well passed. People just wouldn't accept a death or two as part of a child's development. This alone would seem justification for special treatment of these children, though certainly not like the researchers had done, although precautions would obviously be needed. I suppose in the end, there's no ethical conclusion, it's just a mutation introduced into a species, possibly a terminal one(since they are typically sterile and possibly prone to mental disturbances, perhaps due to the enlarged pineal gland?), and the violent period in which one species or the other attempts to assert dominance as it becomes difficult for them to co-exist. -Original "Kill or Reproduce" poster

Lucy had plenty of chances (and reasons) to kill Kouta. She shows her affection towards Kouta by sparing his life on more than one occasions: as children on the train; when she has one vector inside Kouta's head and is ready to kill him but pulls her vecotr out instead; when she walked while angry instead of killing Kouta after slipping on a wet floor; and possibly others not shown (I'm speaking of the anime, I haven't read the manga). As Nyuu, she clearly shows affection towards Kouta. This could mean she care about Kouta enough to resist the instinct kill him, even though she was the cause of serious mental damage. Piroteknix 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Diclonii are so damn deadly, why aren't humans extinct already? It's not too puzzling, really. Just as mankind used to hunt wolves relentlessly to protect themselves and their livestock, but now protect the wolves from poaching. I also dont think referring to it as a genetic mutation is the best point of view. In truth, we all carry genetic mutations. Perhaps a better term would be adaptation due to the positive effects of the Vectors. The words mutation, virus, murderer, and instinct are dehumanizing terms, similar to what the Nazis did to the Jewish community. Simply convince yourself they are animals and they're easier to kill. On the flip side, the Diclonii convinced themselves that certain people weren't human. It may not seem to make sense, but that's the exact point. To label another as inhuman and then kill him or her is truely inhuman. Live is cruelly ironic. Also, the Diclonii are psychologiaclly traumatized because of what they are. Imagine a dolphin being tortured in a bathtub its whole life. I would be suprised if that dolphin didnt kill anyone it saw. In a hostil environment, an organism has two options: destroy yourself or destroy everything else. ElijahD 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarities to Chobits

I've heard this series borrows heavily from Chobits. If someone familiar with both could add a section talking about this, i think it'd be interesting. --Brian Kendig 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the only real similarity is that the main character starts the show wearing no clothes and repeating a single nonsense word. --Shiroi Hane 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've watched all of Chobits and only the first episode of Elfen Lied, but I see a few more similarities: the main character (a beautiful woman) was created for a specific purpose and contains a terrible power, but hides that behind an artificial personality which is an unaware innocent - she has a dual personality; the darker side only manifests itself under certain circumstances. The people who take in this beautiful woman are unaware of her power and work to teach her language and behavior skills, while the people who know her secret are out to find her. --Brian Kendig 15:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

They are thematicaly similar, and there are specific elements in common, but I don't know that it "borrows heavily". There are many many anime series that focus on destructively testing the human psyche in attempt to approach an answer to the identity question (who/what are we, what is human, etc). --Ashmedai 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are girls that can only say one word and keep repeating a new fad in anime? Look at Yumelia, for instance. -Iopq 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

When I first heard Lucy say "nyu" I thought "Oh no, not another Chobits." Not that Chobits was a bad show, but I wasn't in the mood for listening to a high pitched voice chant the same line over and over. But the way in which she changed personalities suprised me. At first she would be a cute and innocent girl in odd clothes, but would suddenly turn into a lethal and sexy badass. Her angry face and voice has that mature woman charm to it, but she was still capable of that cute and happy aura that makes you want to hug her. My ex was like that. Only instead of sexy badass, she was a fat angry witch when she was upset. ElijahD 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Inn

I was reading the article just now, and I noticed that Kouta (the guy who finds Nyu, right?) is described thusly:

"Kouta enters the story when he inherits an inn and comes to live there."

Now, I didn't watch the series too carefully, but wasn't he being allowed to live there at the sufferance of Yuki's family as long as he took care of the place? --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In the version that I saw, it is heavily implied that ownership of the inn was originally bestowed to Yuka because her family wasn't using it. She then says to Kouta when he is moving in that it is his, as long as he cleans the place, so according to my version, it is his based on a verbal contract. --Js2756 22:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be a contract for use of the house, not for ownership, and in that version, it still isn't inherited by Kouta. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll just post how it was translated in the version I saw, and let you do the interpretation:

Kouta: This is...the home they left you?

Yuka: Yea, they weren't using it. Now it's yours. Mom said it was enough to just clean it.

If someone has the official release and can officially verify/discredit, this conversation takes place in episode 1, just over 10 minutes into the episode. It would be good for the sake of accuracy.-Js2756 03:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The translation I've seen seems to imply that it's under the ownership or rental of Yuka's family, and it's being "rented" to Kouta as long as he keeps it clean in the absense of the owners. Either way, "inherit" typically makes one think that Kouta recieved the Inn from a deceased family member. I feel perhaps that even if ownership was given to him, it might be better to say that the Inn was "granted" or "given" to him.

Capitalization

Is "diclonius" a proper noun or an adjective or what? Should it be capitalized or not? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It refers to a species so usually it would be a common noun. You could also use it as a proper noun or an adjective but the construction could be awkward. --Ashmedai 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Diclonius isnt defined as a species, really. It's treated as both a disease and a genetic mutation. A new species must be able to procreate with its own. If it is infact a species, then perhaps the correct term would be Homo diclonius, by standards of binomial nomenclature. I think using Diclonius as both a proper noune and adjective works as it can be used to describe a very specific type of people. ElijahD 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?

If they know that they can't control what they create, Why were they created in the first place? I mean they do have the to kill those scintist because the were abuse by them and treated like dogs. That's the one i don't like about this anime. Because of the lack of love and understand they kill. --Anon

I don't think that the Diclonius were created through artificial means. Although there is no indication either way, it seems like the diclonius are a natural evolution of humans. However they (except Lucy) lack the means of natural reproduction (they propagate through infecting other humans). It can be argued that they are not created since nobody seems to understand much about them or their powers. I think you're missing one of the points of the show, which is to show the two sides of the nature (Lucy and Mariko) vs nurture (Nana) argument. -Js2756 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You dont the lack of love and understanding? Neither do they. That's why they kill. Why do humans go so far just to destroy themselves? Nobody knows. There seems to be some sort of human reflex to become self destructive. ElijahD 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning in the main article

I'm moving the spoiler section down. There are no spoilers in the introduction. (Nor should there ever be, in any article. ^_^) If someone thinks there's a spoiler in the intro, that information should be relocated. --Starwed 07:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified Links

Well, I only have one right now, but there might be others:

-The link to "Mayhem" in the characters section (talking about Nana being dismembered)leads to a disambiguation page (in which I couldn't find a link pertaining to elfen lied)

That should probably link to Wiktionary. It's not well-known, but mayhem is actually derived from Middle English, and is a variant of "maim"- meaning to lose limbs. --maru (talk) contribs 18:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation errors?

"In most English translations there was a mistake made with "close friend" being replaced with "cousin". This is the cause of much confusion among English fans, who believe that she is in an incestuous relationship with Kouta, when in fact, she is just a close friend."

States that 'Close-Friend' was mixed up with 'Cousin', but during a flash back in the last DVD, Yuka clearly calls Kouta's Dad 'Uncle'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erufen (talk • contribs)

That may or may not mean anything; I know that as a kid, I often called people Uncles and Aunts even if they were simply family friends. Haven't we all seen an anime in which a young kid addressed an older male as "Onee-san"? --maru (talk) contribs 17:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with customs like that. Dunno about Japan, but at least here in South Africa it's not uncommon to call older family friends "Aunty" or "Uncle" and some people even use "my cousin" as an informal "my friend". So it's plausible that it's a mis-translation but we'd need a citation to make it concrete. - Phorque 20:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought that Yuka and Kouta being cousins added alot to the storyline, well what i saw it as, and have read, it shows the flaws of humans. Is there any sources stating that it has been a mistranslation? i'm just wondering is all. --Erufen 09:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that them beign cousins made sense. In the first episode, I dont think someone would go up to someone and say "Im your childhood friend". Then again Ill have to check the original Japanese dialogue. -- Psi edit 12:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not like incest never happens in anime in the first place. I'm beginning to doubt this "error" more and more. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i watched that last night and thought the same thing, also, why would Kouta's whole family go to visit a best friend in another town, if there just 'best friends' how did they even meet? Erufen 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't check right now, but Yuka probably calls Kouta's dad "O-ji-san" which both means "Uncle" and "middle-age man". Just like onisan or oneesan can be used for one's brother and sister, or for a young man or woman Freon 08:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are cousins, so it is incest (depending on your definition). I'm removing this "translation error" bit and changing the description to list her as Kohta's cousin. In the first episode, when meeting him, she tells him: "床です。　従妹の。 (Yuka desu. Itoko no.)" "Itoko" is, very specifically, cousin. Note--incest is a very popular subject in anime, and around the world it isn't looked upon with the same sort of disdain as in the majority of English-speaking countries. --Kuronekoyama 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I will add a footnote with this being explained. Some anonymous just reverted it to the childhood friend story again. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for footnoting it. --70.127.189.112 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Kazukawa picture

Proposed new image for Professor Kazukawa.

I've uploaded a new picture for Professor Kazukawa I screencapped from episode 10 of the anime, shown here. Because it's a screencap instead of a scan, the quality is slightly less than what's already there, but I think the camera angle and overall mood of the image is closer to that used in the front-view dossier-like pictures for all the other characters. Anybody have feelings on this either way, would prefer to see this or what's already there?

Yeah, it's a pity he's at an odd angle in the pic, but that's all the official character images had of him. I'm kind of against the loss of quality in this one but if everyone prefers it over the other, go ahead. - Phorque 05:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the one in the article better. -Iopq 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hand Symbols

In several parts of the opening credits, Lucy is shown with one of her hands forming a specific sign/symbol (whatever you want to call it). Does anyone know if there is accually any symbolism behind this? Or am i just seeing things? They do it a lot though so i assumed that it must mean something. The closest thing i can think of would be a gang hand-sign that symbolized the "West Side" in the united states, but its not quite the same i think, and im sure thats not what it represents in this case...Anyway just wondered if anyone had any ideas. --Aaronsjet 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (this was me too, forgot to sign lol)

Your right. I knew I had seen that before. I look into it when I can. -- Psi edit 11:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i have noticed this as well, also in the last episode, where Kouta and Lucy hug, she also has the same symbol on her back, and im pretty sure i've seen it other various times throughout the anime! Erufen 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Humm, really? I've been looking into it some more lately since i made this post, and I was starting to think it was just something they invented for this series. It wouldnt make sense to make something like that up though with out explaining it...so it has to have roots somewhere. Perhaps it's related to something in old latin history, like during roman times or something. --Aaronsjet 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The hand symbol is also imitated by Tupac Shakur in his album "All Eyez on Me". It could be a reference to something... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Eyez_on_Me --Puzk 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, see thats a perfect example of the "west side" hand symbol. If you look close you can see that his thumb is tucked back inside the palm of his hand to form a "W" look. Lucy keeps her thumb outstretched with her other fingers, and her middle and ring fingers are not crossed over, so im guessing that they are most likely not related. I wont deny the are similar though heh. --Aaronsjet 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can explain the cryptic ending (put it in the article but written better?)

At first I thought the ending was a total mindfuck, but now I have figured it out, and who it was that was at the door... Lucy's horns were both shot off, they most likely had this happen so you wouldn't be able to immediatley guess that it was her at the door, and it's also probably symbolic. The last thing Lucy said to Bandoh was something like "This is the last time you'll ever see me." and she walks away from him (presumably after beating his ass again.) So we all know that Lucy/Nyuu has split personalities, I think it must be Nyuu at the door. Lucy dies, Nyuu lives, and she returns home. So she doesn't "die" per se but one of her persoanilites does, if you follow. The music box stops playing lilium to signify the death of Lucy, as she loved that song so much, and the old broken clock starts because Nyuu was always playing with it and interested in it. AshTM 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well my take on the ending was a bit different. I would argue that Lucy actually has 3 personalities: Nyū, and then a murderous Lucy and the Lucy she was as a child. She reverted to Nyū after getting shot as a result of the trauma and the sniper rifle bullet. At the end she is the less murderous Lucy. She hasn't been Nyū for a while and is unlikely to go back because she has sorted out many of her problems and apologized to Kouta about what happened. She has moved on and doesn't :need to "hide" behind Nyū anymore.

As well as that she has lost her horns, which are a symbol of being a demon (I intend to write a section on this and biblical references in Elfen Lied over the next week or two and submit it). You don't see her fight back at the soldiers at the end where she lost her second horn because she has changed and no longer kills when she can avoid it. This is also shown when she lets Bandō live after beating him.

The clock is just to let you know it's her I think, regardless of what personality she is in. As for the music box... it's a symbol of the end of that part of the story I think, and the death of part of her.Mors sum 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just remember, as "figured out" as you may think you have it, there's still chapters and chapters of the manga after the conclusion of the anime, so don't post any speculation without actually knowing how the manga ends. The main problem here is that most of us can't read the manga because it isn't available in English, and hasn't even been fully scanlated (oishii-manga is only on Ch46 and they're the furthest ahead I think). Any statements that go beyond the anime should probably have an indication that they are "manga-only" developments on the plot. The anime was obviously left ambiguous/unresolved for some other reason (intentional, budget, just plain evil, who knows?). - Phorque 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

True, I forgot to mention that. Has anyone here read the manga, or know someone who has? If so it would be nice if you could tell us what happens....and would the Elfen Lied page then be split into a maga page and an anime page or left as a combination?Mors sum 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read as far as the fan-scanlations have gone (ch46) and it's not past the anime plot, but has introduced Sozomi-chan... people seem to drop statements seemingly referenced from the manga chapters after the conclusion of the anime but don't ever stop to say whether they read it themselves, came to their own conclusions or got it from another source. Personally, I'd rather read the manga myself as it is scanlated than spoil it for myself, and I'll add info as it makes itself apparent there. - Phorque 08:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the ambiguity of the anime ending is because the ending few episodes of the anime differ drastically from what happens in the manga. I won't get into details because I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but had the anime stayed faithful to the manga, it would have had a much different ending. The ending of the manga is much more conclusive than that of the anime, and a lot happens between Lucy's first encounter with Mariko in the manga, unlike the anime. -Js2756 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So you've read the whole thing? If you've read the Japanese original, please don't hesitate to update this article. I can only vouch for my info up to chapter 47 (as of today). - Phorque (talk · contribs) 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the manga, but I used to frequent a message board where they discussed the manga right up until the final volume was released (then the message board server was hacked and lost a year's worth of posts). It was awhile back since I was there, so my memory is a bit fuzzy on details. -Js2756 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're brave and don't mind spoilers, read the babelfish translation of the japanese article It'd probably be easier if you can just read japanese. ^^

Please note that i cannot read or understand Japanese. The following is a mixture of what i read at the Elfen Lied fan sites, several viweings of the last volumes of the manga, and my own wishful thinking :D. But i do belive it should be useful to fans of Lucy, like myself, should they wish to know how the series/manga ends. Serveral details have been ommited :D

Achtung spoilers: {{spoilers}} well going by the manga story line AshTM is correct. Lucy fights and defeats mariko, loses both her horns, but survives the fight. Also, when she gets back to maple inn, she reverts to her 'Nyuu' personaliy and stays that way for a while. Unfortunately, the institute sends fresh and even more sadistic ppl after Lucy. when maple inn is attacked, nyuu reverts to Lucy, with much bigger horns that appear suddenly, also she gets much longer and more powerful vectors than before <<long enough to take down a helicopter in the sky>>, but still gets one of her horns shot off and faints, ending up being captured. The President of the institute warns lucy that over using her vectors is harmful to her body and could end up destroying her. Still, Lucy manages to escape, meets up with kouta and promises him that she will never kill again, and as she leaves, she is attacked by kurama, but kouta throws himself between them and takes the bullet for Lucy. After seeing kouta get hurt, poor Lucy goes beserk and develops super long vectors <<several Kilometers long>> and smashes several buildings in the city, and still kurama gets rescued by nana. on the other han, Lucy contiues destroy the city whilst cradling kouta. unexpectedly, her left hand *falls off* as if her wrist suddenly rotted away. Lucy savs kouta by healing his bullet wound with her tisue, and meanwhile her body continues to rot/liquefy til shes reduced to a limbless torso. At this point they are attacked again by the people from the lab and they explain that Lucys condition is due to her over use of vectors which "destabilise" her body tissues. they try to take back Lucy, but she chooses freedom and kills off the lab people. By this time most of her body has rotted away and all thats left of Lucy is her head <<with half her face roted off>> and just a skeleton and a mass off purtified flesh below her neck. The other girls from the inn show up at this point and Lucy reverts briefly to Nyuu to bid them farewell. For some reason she chooses to attack them again, but suddely the images of Lucy and Nyuu appear before the gang, shielding them from Lucy. <<speculation: as if the personas of Lucy and Nyuu gained seperate conciousness and have come to terms weith their short and tragic life. More importantly, they forgive the brutal cruelty inflicted on them and wish to end it all>>. Lucy then picks up a gun and hands it to kouta and asks him to end her misery. The manga ends with a tearful kouta crying that "he had killed NYUU".

DAS ENDE

Epilogue: all the other charecters seem to survive. Mayu gets adopted by bandou, nana gets adopted by the bastard kurama, whom she still loves tho he performed brutal experiments on her, and yuka and kouta get married and have a daughter. every year during the summer fetival, Kouta visits the place where he first met Lucy, ie at the grave of Lucys dog. he continues to visit this sopt year after year, as if waiting for someone. Fifteen years after the ending of Elfen Lied, <<not sure here, counting the frames its like 11 years. but judging by the age of his daughter, more than 15 years>> kouta visits the same sopt with his daughter <<who looks just like Yuka>> and explins to her about his "very special" friend. His daughter surprisingly, knows about it and locates a bottle half buried in he grave << this is the same bottle that little Lucy buried about 20 years ago, with a mesage and the jade that kouta gave her as a kid>>

Kouta rushes to the bottle and reads the leter from the distant past... the child hood Lucy's message from twenty years ago reads "If you are reading this, you have fulfilled your promise to me". Kouta breaks into tears at this message of forgivenes from his childhood friend decades ago <<perhaps finally realising his true love for Lucy>>

Suddenly two girls appear<< their hair is in ribbons, just as nyuus hair was, as if to conceal horns>>, and koutas daughter introduces them as her friends. on seeing them, Kota inexplicably becomes joyous and the story ends with a smile :D

<<wild speculation: these two are the Reincarnations of Lucy and Nyuu. their age makes it probable that they wer born around the time of Lucys death. Also the fact that kouta is inexplicably happy at seeing them means he some how recognised Lucy and Nyuu in these two girls. At least I personally hope so my self, because after all she has been through, Lucy deserved a chance at happiness. Nyuu also got reicarnated <<something to do with Lucy/nyuus images which appeard just before Lucys death 15 year ago??>>, It appears they are twins who have had loving parents <<more wild speculation :D , Lragely cos lucy was abandoned at birth and this time she gets loving parents to compensate>>. Probably they have the good memories of their past life, the love they got from kouta, without the bitter memories of horrible child hood :end wild speculation>>

Title errors?

In the article I've read that Elfen Lied would be slightly misspelled German for Elf Song. However, if you would consider it might be Dutch instead of German, then there is no problem with the spelling, and the meaning is not altered.

Are we certain there were translation errors?

I removed that small notice. From looking at the Lied article. There doesnt seem to a translation error. -- Psi edit 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Both in German and in Dutch it should be spelled "Elfenlied". Considering the reference to the poem, it's probably German. Shinobu 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

UK airing

Just added a quick note to the anime section of the mainpage saying that EL will start on British TV on June 3rd on the Propeller Sky channel (specifically, 9:30pm) Sephjnr 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a "normal" channel or satellite?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 01:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Satellite only (Sky Digital) Sephjnr 09:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ending theme

I have mentioned in the article a possible relation between the ending song text and Yuka's jealousy. However, this is just an idea of mine, so I wanted to mention it here so that I can be corrected (in case this is needed). I do not know Japanese but I have an edition with full Italian subtitles, so I've seen in the lyrics sentences like "say I'm the only girl for you". --Blaisorblade 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR states that unless it's been verified by the creator(s) or published in a reputable third-party source, it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. Yes, the song is from the perspective of a girl who wants a certain guy to ask her to be 'his', but that doesn't mean it's necessarily picked for that. The song came before the series. Nique talk 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nyu or Nyuu?

The vast majority of anime review pages out there spell it "Nyuu" as far as I can see so I'm thinking of changing that. ætərnal ðrAعon → 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it subtitled?--SeizureDog 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've only seen the Madman subtitling, plus the English release online, and they spell Nyuu with 2 "u"s. ætərnal ðrAعon → 09:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The official DVD set lists and subtitles it "Nyu" whenever the name appears. That's what we should use, since it's official, and we're already using the official romanization for Kohta. Nique talk 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I use it as Nyū. the "u" has a line thing over it meaning it's holding the sound, making it seem like 2 U'sOsirisV 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Then again, most people would refer to it as "Nyuu", so when they search for it, they owuld search "Nyuu". If you look at it, typing "Nyu" in the search bar redirects us to a totally different topic. Maybe, as it is done for most characters, Nyuu (にゅう, Nyū), which uses both spellings as people understand it. ætərnal ðrAعon 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Could we get something straight here? Some people are making claims that the show is "satire", ecchi, harem, or, as one put it, comedy. Face it, Okamoto has gone to some liberties with bodily exposure over the series, however there are virtually no sexual references. For those who think it's comedy, sure, there are small bits which are laughable, but I don't think slaughtering, themes of isolation and anger and the show questioning the value of humanity itself is that much of a comedy. Well, maybe, emo comedy. ætərnal ðrAعon → 09:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely finding it funny isn't all that uncommon a reaction? I know I found the first scene culminating in the secretary's death absolutely hysterical. --Gwern (contribs) 19:32 18 September 2007 (GMT)

Hmm Im not sure if this should be satire. Since satire typically means in a jovial or humorous manner. And the depiction of humanity and are worthiness to be the superior race on this planet wasnt much "satire" at all.68.226.125.194 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the genre field to just the three most common genres that the entire franchise is listed as by both ANN and AnimeNfo. If anyone adds additional genres, they should cite a third-party source of some form instead of continuing to engage in original research. --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The manga did have alot of sexual references as well as a large amount of nudity, sex scenes and not just of Lucy/Nyuu, not the anime trough but the manga version is cleary ecchi harem/semi mature..WillTheWitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillTheWitch (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Result of experimentation?

The article says Diclonii are the result of experimentation. Didn't they say in the anime that it was an evolutionary event, and that they are completely natural. 81.69.78.99 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. And Lucy called Nana's vectors "experimental equipment" due to her inexperience in using her vectors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.93.81 (talk • contribs)

Plot Extension

Looks like Eternal Dragon posted something here about extending the plot section. While its not against the rules to post spoilers and such, it really doesn't add to the article to post the entire plot of the show. You shouldn't be able to use the article as a replacement for watching the show, but you should have a pretty good idea of what it's about. I think the article already does a good job of that. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge the songs

The two articles on the opening and ending songs have little contents left once copyvio is removed, and don't really have any credible notability of their own. I suggest the relevant content be merged into the relevant section of this article (or into "Elfen Lied (anime)", should the split occur), so that the song articles can be safely disposed of as copyright violations. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. By that, I mean support merging "Lilium" and oppose merging "be your girl". There's only about one paragraph of info for "Lilium", that's all that can really be said beside the lyrics (which can go to Wikisource), thus allowing the info to enhance the series article. However, "be your girl" is important in regards to Chieko Kawabe more than the series, as it was her first single and it was released on the charts. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not really convinced that Be Your Girl really stands on its own as an encyclopedic article, per WP:MUSIC#Songs (A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album), but it seems that most copyvio problems have been dealt with there, and you're right that most of it should probably be merged to the debut album or to Chieko Kawabe anyway.

Can we agree to merge and redirect Lilium (song) at least? This own has severe copyvio problems, in addition to dubious notability. We could do without a specific disambiguation tag on Lilium, too. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The article Elfen Lied is too long and "Elfen Lied (anime)" is not that short either. Merging them compromises readability. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you seem to have taken upon yourself to expand the Lilium (song) article beyond a two-line stub, I guess it's okay. Remember, however, that everything in the article should be reliably sourced, and that we have a policy against copyright infringement. Bikasuishin (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Cool, so can we remove the merging tag now? --Da Vynci (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Elfen Lied (anime)

I propose that the information regarding the TV series be made into a new article. While the lead declares that Elfen Lied is a "manga series created by author Lynn Okamoto", the bulk of the information stems from the anime adaptation. There's no info on the manga's development but there's a long section on the anime's production. The bulk of the images are anime screencaps. The plot section summarizes what happens on the TV series and the "Style and themes" and "Reception" relate only to the anime.

I think splitting the article is the way to go. It's a heck of a lot easier that straightening the article to focus on the manga.--Nohansen (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's simply not enough information out there, at least information in English, to write about the manga. Yet, if such an article was started, it would almost be exactly the same. If you think there's enough content, why not expand the article? I'm trying to make it an FA and more details would only help it more. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An article on the manga (like this one) could never make to FA. Like you said, there's next to none information on the manga; and a complete, FA-quality article needs a "Production" section, a "Design" section and a "Reception" section. You'd be hard-pressed to find that for the manga.

But all that info is available on the anime adaptation. My suggestion is to follow the example of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime) article. It started as coverage on the Haruhi novels, the first entry in the series and its anime adaptation. But editors saw there was potential for expansion in a solo article for the anime and promptly split it. "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)" passed GA without much objection.

The same can't be said for this article. Like I said, for an article that claims to be about the manga, there's not much info about it. No "Production", no "Design", no "Reception", no real artwork examples, and the plot is retelling the TV series. The definition of diclonious stems from the TV series ("Diclonius, according to the anime..."); and there's even a "See also: List of Elfen Lied episodes" in the plot section, admitting this is the plot according to the anime.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not going to press the issue.--Nohansen (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know the article focuses on the anime, but the fact is, it still has a "Production" and "Reception" section, so we're still expanding that. Either way, does that mean that it would be better to have separate articles like the "Elfen Lied (anime)" article (which would have sufficient information) but the single article, by not having sufficient information, wouldn't make FL? See, the plots are too similar and so are the themes and reception. So I think we should split these headings into a separate section instead of as subheadings under "Anime" to satisfy everyone. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.I believe the articles should not be split. The manga article would be to short for Wikipedia.

Also a lot more information is in the anime then the manga. You could always put more information about the manga yourself. You could also change some pictures to their comic book style. There is a lot of stuff you can do without splitting the article. I see no sense in splitting the article. And I agree with the first person who opposed. You should see the "Русский" article. I know you may not be able to read it, but that is a pretty good Elfen Lied article I have to say. Maybe you could learn off of something like that. Cardinal Raven (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

• Oppose. The current article covers the series as a whole. While splitting the anime into its own article might be a convenient method of gaming WP:FA, it will not serve our readers well and goes against accepted style. --erachima talk 05:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, the correct solution is to fix this article to include more manga information, and tone down unnecessary anime details. Splitting just hides the real problem. This would also violate the MoS, which does not allow for separate articles unless the adaptations are significantly different (as in pretty much totally different stories, not the usual leaving out/adding characters). Lack of information is never a good reason to split and nothing I see here suggests the two are different enough for a split. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article

It says diclonius are a different species yet the article on diclonius and many bits in the manga say otherwise infact the description of the manga says mutated homo sapien not something else can someone please fix that--Vipa Human (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the description is really wrong, but I'm not an expert in evolution terms. If they are mutated homo sapiens, then they can very well be different species of the same genus. This is sort of like the homo superior concept in X-Men, however inaccurate the term is. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with that is issues with genetic compatibility and diclonius have been stated to compatible with normal humans and give birth to fertile offspring no infertile hybrids which is what supposed to happen with species of the same genus(kakuzawas line was a glitch in the evolution whos genes diluted mating with normal people, Lucy bloodline fixes this as stated in the manga.) With xmens mutants those issues also pertain too many things are againts them being a different species especially that fact. This is the same issue with diclonius--Vipa Human (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Status and Article Issues

I've tagged the article for multiple issues. It needs some serious clean up to comply with the Anime and Manga MoS, the plot cut down, almost all the non-free images removed, and the manga table moved off to its own List of Elfen Lied chapters. There are also some wholly unreferenced sections, numerous unreferenced statements, and some non-neutral language and blatant OR/personal opinion. This is not acceptable in a GA level article. If the article is not brought back up the required GA criteria within two weeks, it will be delisted. Normally, it would qualify for an immediate delisting, but I see some project folks have worked on this, so I'm going to hope that's a sign that clean up is already underway? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to this as soon as I can. I've been worried about the unreferenced sections for a while, I guess I didn't follow the screenshots to see what their license status was. I'll probably get to this in the next two days or so. Thanks for the warning! --Kraftlos (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great :) For the images, keep in mind that the WP:NONFREE policy was severely tightened earlier this year, pretty much disallowing individual character images in articles. Since there is already a character list with the allowed single group image, you may want to just remove the character images all together, or replace them with the one image from the character list. This would fix the bulk of the problem there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the plot section, but I realized I've removed some key concepts. The plot section really wasn't very well written and had some severe gramatical problems. As for the pictures, I removed the ones that were no longer covered in the plot, but I think the one's remaining are allowable by: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". And the individual characters are allowed by: "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." I've briefly looked over other GA and Featured anime articles and it appears to be standard practice to include SOME screen shots and pictures of the main characters (but not every character). --Kraftlos (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've edited the plot section to be about half as long (though it still needs work). I gave the manga section its own page, moved some photos to the character page, removed some entirely. I rewrote the manga section on the main page. I think the character page needs to be changed from being a list and just write one or two paragraphs about all the characters. The character list page could probably use a "Main character" section so the key characters aren't buried in the list. I think as it is, we've satisfied the copyright/fair use problems and some of the main organizational problems. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the individual character shots are not allowed, not here and not in the list. They will be stripped, trust me on this. They violate WP:NONFREE. Make sure you are looking at current GA/FAs and not ones that passed in 2007 or earlier. Also, you seemed to have misunderstood what I meant on splitting out the manga chapters, so I'm fixing that now. Also doing other fixes to bring the article into MoS compliance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. They are allowed so long as there is not a picture that can cover multiple characters. Of course you cannot fill your character page with individual character shots, but 2 or 3 is perfectly allowable, at least according to the discussions you pointed me to earlier.--Kraftlos (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and there obviously is a picture that can cover multiple characters as one is sitting right there at the top of the character list. Either way, I'll others correct you since you continue to think I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't even know why you'd want to fight to keep such useless images that were stolen from a fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One huge additional issue is the lack of balance. I realize information on the manga is more difficult to come by, however the article is horribly unbalanced towards the anime. The plot and character sections need to be sure it is for the manga, not the anime. The style/themes needs paring down on the anime side, and expanded, if possible, on the anime side. It might also be worth considering to move that to the anime list, along with the anime production section, and make the episode page into something closer to what we see with a season page versus the usual list only anime episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Season articles that include production and design sections work for series that lasted several seasons, like Cold Feet (series 1) and Smallville (season 1). Sometimes they're even a necessity. But for a series that technically lasted one season, like this one, a "season article" is no different from an article on the show itself. Just add a "Plot" mini-section (giving the show's premise and changes made in the adaptation) and a link to the characters page.--Nohansen (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the plot section is still too long, I was just doing a quick edit to shrink it. Again, I'd like to reiterate that the policy says on #6: "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." That's far from a blanket ban on character shots, which are common in almost any article like this. While it does recommended screenshots with multiple characters like a cast shot, it doesn't bar individual shots of the main characters if used sparingly and agreed upon by the editors. I have some fan compilations that might qualify as a cast shot if you'd rather see something like that.

Again, yes, there is a blanket ban on individual character images. Go ask at WP:NONFREE or read the many archives. Every last attempt to "justify" is smacked down. A character list is allowed, at most 1-3 character images. There have many many many character lists where we've had to go through and strip out 10-30 character images. You want to keep adding it back for decoration, fine, I'll just go note it at non-free and let someone else strip them out because they will be removed regardless. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"A character list is allowed, at most 1-3 character images." Exactly. Kraftlos (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, aside from the naming convention, I'm not sure how what you did with the manga page is different to what I did. Please explain. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We've been working for three months to get the article to FA, and now it's not even GA standard? The plot section has beeen made more elaborative, and it does need to be seriously cut down, but in regards to the themes, production and style of the anime, I haev provided references when adding text in all instances. Another thing is, very few articles actually use a cover from an edition of a manga in the intro infobox. Most of them use an actual title logo, or some (such as the FA Madlax) use a promo poster. It would be best if the promo poster used for Elfen Lied was put in the intro infobox - it has the same copyright status as the one as that for the FA Madlax. Anyways, I don't see why you say large chunks need referencing when it's obviously been provided, in most instances more than once each paragraph? ætərnal ðrAعon 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my edit of the plot section was a bit hasty. But it seemed like whoever wrote it wanted to include every single detail of the plot (WP is not plot summaries). Anyway, I was wondering about that manga pic at the top too. If I'm not mistaken, the anime is more well-known than the manga. Also that logo was the one the official site uses. It made the article look a lot better. Collectonian keeps talking about some change in the Non-Free image policy, but as far as I can tell, the policy is exactly the same. How long ago did this supposed change occur? I only refer to current policies, it's not as if we're going into the page histories and arguing from 1-2 year old policies. (anyway i'm reverting the logo) --Kraftlos (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the old plot and cut it down heaps, as I believe that the style of the new plot is vastly in-universe and wouldn't be fully understood by someone with no knowledge of the series. Don't get me wrong, it was too long, so I cut out several bits and pieces, I used a guideling of five paragraphs. As for the intro infobox image, I agree with Kraftlos on this one but I think it's better to use the poster as the manga was not released outside Japan and the artwork is more associated with the series than the manga cover. I've noticed that according to the template at the top of this page, the Russian article is an FA in that Wikipedia, and they use a similar promo poster. I also think the images are of value to the article, I've got rationales for them and the homage to Klimt is a critical part of the series' OP. Neither was I told that the copyright laws have changed recently making my rationales no longer valid when they had been there for some months already. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, the manga is the primary work, so we will use its image in the infobox. For the infobox, it does not matter that it is unreleased, it is still the first work and what this article's focus should be. This is according to project consensus (go read the recent discussions on this very issue). We do not follow other wikipedia conventions. I've restored the proper image. If you haven't been following non-free then I'm sorry, but FURs do not somehow give a blanket allowance to use excessive non-free image. The policy wording hasnt' changed much, but it is actually being enforced now after a heavy edict from the Wikimedia Foundation. It isn't something with a ton of negotiation room. I would suggest that contributing editors become better acquainted with our MoS, the current GA criteria (which are much stronger than they were when this article passed), and read up more on WP:FICT and WP:NONFREE, before continuing to undo some of the many necessary clean ups just because they prefer the unacceptable versions. If clean up efforts are going to continue to be hampered and you guys don't want to actually bring the articleup to Wikipedia standards rather than your own personal preferences, say so now so I can go ahead and send it to GAR for relisting and not waste the time and effort to try to salvage it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that you do a lot of work with the Manga and Anime project, but please don't go referring to yourself as "we". You are an individual and need to talk to us as a collaborator, not an administrator.--Kraftlos (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The MoS simply states that the article has to discuss the original work. It doesn't say that the cover has to be the picture. Reading the discussions on the manga infobox talkpage, it seems to me that the consensus is that whatever image best identifies the series is what is preferred. Often this is a cover scan, but in this case, we're dealing with a manga that isn't released outside of japan. The template reads "A relevant image for the work, which should be a movie poster, a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or another related image. Be sure to include a valid fair use rationale for the image if you upload one. (Optimal image size is 230px) Since this is the english wikipedia and the anime is the only part of this series released in english, the most relevant picture would probably come from the anime.

BTW, it would have been more helpful if you had actually posted a link to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles) so we could all find it rather than beating us over the head with it then leaving us to find it on our own. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been following the discussions on the project page, MoS page, infobox page, etc. for a couple of months now, and looking through this, Collectonian has it pretty close to right according to the discussions the project has had recently. It is true that she cannot always speak for the project as a whole, but in this case, I haven't found one instance where she injected her own opinion or interpretation of any discussions or guidelines, beyond what is necessary for the application of those guidelines. I think your main problem may be that you don't like seeing a previously unrelated person step in from outside and make large edits to an article you feel you have ownership over. —Dinoguy1000 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem isn't that drastic changes are being made, or that an outside editor is making them. My problem is the condescending attitude, and the fact that some of the changes have nothing to do with the MoS even though that's what I keep getting pointed to. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your split seemed to be trying to make a separate article for the manga (inappropriate) and you basically just copy/pasted to shove it out of the article. Mine removed the "differences" et al stuff, properly formatted it, filled some misisng info, gave it a start of a lead, added a reference and category section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as references and citing sources; how exactly would one go about getting references for this anime. The official site? Would the anime news network encyclopedia considered a valid source. My japanese is really bad, so I can't use the official site. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My Japanese isn't so good either, but the official site is really great for referencing, that's where many references are from. I just sent the text through Dictionary.com's translator. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

By finding reliable sources. The official site is acceptable for basic stuff, ANN is a valid source (except things like the trivia section), as is AnimeOnDVD and a few other anime review sites (the rest, may want to post here if you aren't sure). Might also be mentioned in some anime/manga books, magazine articles, etc. Wouldn't be surprised if it got coverage in NewType and the like when it was released considering its nature. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how to find reliable sources. I'm a journalist. I was asking what sources people thought would be useful for this page. Mainly directed at those who have been working on this page longer than me. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-Free Rational

The current Wikimedia foundation licensing policy still allows for the non-free exemptions on the English wikipedia under the fair-use rational.

Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek.

I see the phrase "project specific" and you mentioned that this project does things differently, but i haven't come across any specific image policy specific to manga and anime, so I'm going to have to defer to the WP criteria. Fair use is acceptable under the following conditions:

1. No free equivalent.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.
3. Use -

1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.

1. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia.
2. Meets general WP standards for encylopedic content
3. Meets WP's image policy
4. Has to be placed in an article.
5. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
6. Restrictions on location. Not in disambiguation pages, no image gallery, not in talk pages
7. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

1. Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
3. The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

Placing an image of Lucy breaking out of the base in the plot section conveys the idea of the first 15 mins of the anime (and I assume the manga) in a way that cannot be conveyed merely through words. It also meets all of the above criteria. No one is ignoring WP:NONFREE, we're all very familiar with it. Let's avoid this edit war and DISCUSS this. I think æt should have some say since he's been working on page for quite a while. Also keep in mind that this was once a featured article and hasn't really changed that much since then. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't once a featured article unless I'm missing something. It passed GA under looser guidelines than exist now. And no, the image of Lucy breaking out does not convey anything extra nor is it necessary. Its decoration, nothing more. As for avoiding edit warring, you are the one who reverted the clean up rather than bring your objections here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, but that's simply because you made some drastic changes to the article without discussing it. I didn't initiate. How does that not add to the plot description? That's the most distinctive scene in the entire series. It's used in the trailers on Anime Network. Explain. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made appropriate drastic changes to fix the article and bring it in line with the MoS and get it into shape so it won't need to be delisted. That you don't agree with the clean up is another whole issue, and that you want to continue arguing over stuff despite it being in-line with real good article, well, that's a third. Its still decoration. Being used in the trailers, frankly, doesn't mean anything at all. It is not critically discussed, and acts as nothing more than decoration. A reader does not need to see the image in order to gain some additional understanding. They gain nothing from it at all. Indeed, as you keep insisting the poster should be the infobox image, its also just redundant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits and concerns of Collectonian

I've been working for three months to get this article to FA status, and believe that this recent wave of edits is anything but beneficial to achieving such. According to WP:MOS-AM:

#Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long. Follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style when creating subarticles.

1. Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed.
2. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines when including spoilers.
3. When adding categories to an article, use one or more of the subcategories from Category:Anime and manga by genre. Try to pick the most accurate categories, and avoid redundant genres. (For example, action is a subcategory of drama, so it is not necessary to include drama as a genre.) In general, two or three genres should be sufficient for most articles.
4. Please also use one of the subcategories from Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Manga by date of first release (as applicable). There should be only one anime and one manga release year category for each article unless there are multiple releases (e.g., a TV series, an OVA series, and a film).

In regards to this:

• Collectonian's deletion of the "Diclonius" and other significant plot details is contrary to 1).
• Collectonian's plot is in-universe, and would not be understood by one without knowledge of the subject, without having to navigate to another article (in this case, Diclonius (Elfen Lied)).
• The manga is not available outside Japan and is not recognised outside Japan thus.
• The opening paragraph of the plot summary, describing the interactions of the diclonius with humans, is inconsistent with WP:WAF#Plot summaries.
• The images are necessary in description of the article.

As far as I'm concerned, Collectonian is cutting the quality of this article in her own best interest. Several of the sections need to remain in order for it to be upgraded to FA or even stay a GA, and removal of information is contrary to this objective. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, I didn't rewrite the plot so don't attribute it to me. Second, how the heck is removing Diclonus a violation of #1 which is with regard to the lead?? None of the rest of the stuff you've listed appears to have anything to do with this conversation at all? The manga being available outside Japan is no reason to ignore it (and that is a false statement as it was released in Spanish), and the character appearance is not so dramatically different that the cover of the manga does not clearly identify/represent the series. And no, any character images and decorative are not necessary. If the article loses GA, it will not be upgraded to FA and had to taken it to FA, I'd have been one of the first to strongly oppose it as it was not in GA, much less FA, shape (and still isn't). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Decoration" is simply your opinion. Several of the images, notably the first seven minutes and the OP, give it the homage to the Klimt artwork and the boldness of the first seven minutes. As far as I'm concerned, Collectonian is not "cleaning up" the article. Kraftlos pointed out the validity as our edits are based around both MoS and the guidelines of non-free content pasted above. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So far, not a single person has voiced agreement with you that the images are somehow necessary to the article besides the you and Kraftlos, and neither of you seems able to look at it neutrally. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrally? Since when have you been "neutral" in explaining this article? You're not even an admin. Two against one here, and you're not the one supposed to be judging neutrality in this case. Kraftlos counts as a person, duh. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually two against two, if you read the whole conversation as Dinoguy1000 supported me. And what does "not even an admin" have to do with anything? I am neutral, I'm just cleaning it up per the project MoS guidelines and Wikipedia guidelines. The only ones screaming are you two who are making ownership claims and your arguments are all versions of WP:ILIKEIT rather than actually being supported by the things you are quoting. Stop the reverting, not only are you undoing my edits, but you are also undoing edits that fixed the infobox and removing needed tags. As such, it could be considered a form of vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, okay, here's my take on it, though I'm having a little trouble here. If Collectonian is opposed to the two images in the Themes section, then why did she revert to a version which included them?. Other images that were removed (the 4 character shots) shouldn't rightfully be there; the image at List of Elfen Lied characters is sufficient. The infobox image, I think, can go either way. Primary material or not, I've been involved in a discussion with Collectonian in the past about infobox images, and there is nothing that says the a cover of the primary work, in this case the manga, has to be used; it's just what is generally defaulted. I personally think the other image with Lucy works just as well as it features the series' logo with the main character, just as the manga image does, but with different art. The fact that the manga is unlicensed in English makes no difference. The plot section is much too large and should be shortened, but I feel an explanation of what a Diclonius is is vital to the plot, though even that can be shortened and merged into a single, more compact, plot section. Remember that the plot should reflect the overall story, and should not take liberties with the anime, or make it seem like it was written with an anime bias. This should also be why the List of Elfen Lied episodes is not linked in this section. A section discussing the differences between the media, of which has already started, is a good thing and should be expanded by someone familiar with both media types.--十八 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have never said that we own the articles, I'm complaining that opinions weren't even being taken into consideration. I'm well-versed in the philosophy of wikipedia and have read most the ediqate and community-related policies and essays; would never claim to own an article, that's just stupid.

I'm all for everyone working on the article together, so long as the article gets better, not worse. I actually proposed very early on, that that cast shot be moved down on the character list so that we can use it to reference all four female characters. I have no problem with the character shots being removed if more acceptable replacements can be found which include multiple characters. With regard to the four MoS points above (which I presume all of us are referring to), my main concern with this article is the spoilers, the plot summary really only needs to describe the premise of the show and maybe the plot of the first couple episodes, of course major themes like Diclonius need to be included. With regard to the availability of the original work in english, it simply means that it's going to be very hard to find information on it. We can do what we can, but it really shouldn't keep us from writing all we need to about the anime, some of it might even be the same in both works. I'll track down a scanslation and see if I can read a bit of it...

Also, when I moved the manga volume list off-page, I moved several specific sections with it that got deleted; I'm now up to date on the entire MoS and understand why what I did wasn't in keeping with the established guidelines; but if we could some how bring that info back and work it into the main article, that would be great (if this has already been done, ignore my last point).--Kraftlos (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember, Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. The plot section should give the entire over all plot, not just a teaser or a summary of the start. To be comprehensive and accurate, it should include the beginning, major plot points, and the ending. Google "Elfen Lied manga" and should find what you're looking for in the first few results in very easy to read forms too. *whistles innocently* The information removed from the manga break out was all unsourced. If it can be sourced, it should be incorporated appropriately. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with WP:Spoiler. What I should have said was, the way the plot section was set up, you could have basically sat here and read the description as a replacement for the manga/anime. It shouldn't spoil all the plot, it should only mention the important points of the plot which are necessary to understand what happens in the anime. It would be nice to have subsections which indicate opening, ending, etc as mentioned in the policy, so someone know what they're about to read. With the unsourced sections, I wasn't sure what was in there. If it was unsourced, I'm sure that would could find a source for it. I personally would never add unsourced info to an article, but I generally don't delete it if it's correct but unsourced. It would be easier to find sources and re-write, then to delete and start over. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But the main thing is the plot needs to be condensed drastically, and get rid of the anime bias. Phrases like Toward the end of the series, Kurama is forced to risk the fate of both diclonius and humanity by unleashing Mariko... is purely based on the anime's interpretation of events near the end of that series, but says nothing about what happens at the end of the manga. Basically, we don't even have to go into seriously detail with the manga, as Wikipedia is not a plot summary, so a nice concise overview of the major premise and themes which appear in both media works wonders (and I doubt you'd ever get this article up to FA without doing this). Any other comparisons and differences can go in the "Differences between media" subsection.--十八 06:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When did I say I believe that this article is mine? Sure, this is a public domain encyclopedia, but this article has been at peace until you came along. I've been asking around and Juhachi agrees on this one. Why did you delete half the plot and only have the information of the first two episodes, when you yourself said, "The plot section should give the entire over all plot, not just a teaser or a summary of the start"? How dare you call my edits vandalism. I have condensed the plot, I have added inline citations, and WikiProject anime and manga does not oppose the use of fair use images if they are necessary to the series, a staement which I have verified there.

Either way, Juhachi: how shall we arbitrate this and get on with the goal of FA status while we are threatening to lock it and Collectonian is refusing to co-operate with Kraftlos and I? ætərnal ðrAعon 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I left you a note regarding that. You were extremely careless in your undoing. And the anime and manga MoS is NOT the deciding factor on images, its WP:NONFREE which has already said multiple times that no, they are not necessary and they will be removed. Tell you what, go ahead and revert it back to the old version (ask permission of the admin first), and I'll just go ahead and do the GAR and list it at WP:NONFREE for stripping since I'm just some "disruptive editor" who doesn't know anything about this stuff. As Juhachi can probably tell you, I've taken several of the project articles to GA and they have all been delisted because I actually do know what I'm talking about (if I hadn't made the mistake of attempting to help clean up the article, I'd just do a straight delist, which Juhachi will also likely tell you (with hopefully only mild annoyance :P) will be upheld because again, I do know what I'm talking about. The article isn't GA and nothing y'all have done will get it there. It sure isn't FA either. I'm not "refusing to cooperate" you have blatantly rejected every bit of clean up I did just because you didn't do it and you don't like how "the nazi" did it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(Unindent) (Thinks to self: How is it that I became the middle man?) Okay, this is what I suggest should be done. Condense the plot, make it manga-centric, give an overview of the beginning and major plot points and an ending if one is available, as in one of us (or some other editor) can provide one (I'm looking at you, Collectonian, on this issue). Expand differences between media. Characters looks okay, but the image at List of Elfen Lied characters can be included. The two images in "Style and themes" I believe are necessary, since they help illustrate the point about the nudity and violence in the series (pic one), and the direct relation to "The Kiss" (pic two). Collectonian herself has argued about the inclusion of such images that help to illustrate prose at List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, and I do not believe any of the current images used in the article are mere decoration, so shouldn't be removed. The individual character pics don't belong there (as I said, single image is better) and of the two anime images formally used in the article, I think this image might be able to be salvaged, if it can be used to illustrate Lucy's dark side. The image of Kouta and Lucy as kids I think is superfluous, and what with the plot eventually reduced, one image for this section will be enough. Everything else looks to be in-line, at least for a GA. For FA concerns, copyedit the prose, cite everything, expand production, and perhaps condense the Characters section into a smaller single paragraph (I myself had to do this on the recently GA-promoted Air (visual novel)). The infobox image can be the last thing debated, if need be (as it's the least of the article's problems). And cite anything you can for it to be a GA standard as well.--十八 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's make sure we're clear here. I argued for the existance of two group images, which meet Non-Free (as was agreed on Non-Free) and one of which was a relevant to the discussion. Never said 1-3 GROUP images couldn't be added to the character list, indeed I encouraged it. But they don't want that. They want to argue for keeping several tiny, stolen low quality individual character images that do violate WP:NONFREE. I also never argued against the images in the style and themes nor did I remove them. I argued against the decorative ones in the plot section which did not illustrate any points at all (they are currently removed, you'll need to look back to see them[3]). Would also suggest they stop focusing on the images and look at the other GA criteria I noted the article fails like the "wholly unreferenced sections, numerous unreferenced statements, and some non-neutral language and blatant OR/personal opinion" which are grounds for quick delisting. And don't look to me, I'm not going to bother doing anything else to the article but watch it sink or swim on its own and then revisit in two weeks as already noted to see if it is back at GA level. (As for how you became the middle man...I asked you to look at it because no one could ever say we were operating in tandem :P and I knew you would view it neutrally and honestly; and you are one of the most active editors in the project and well versed in policy and guidelines, even if we regularly argue over the nuances) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Due to me updating you didn't see but) As I said above, this image might be able to be used to illustrate how Lucy changes to her dark side, if the prose can reflect it which I don't think is hard. The image of when Kouta and Lucy were kids I think can be removed, as well as the promo poster (unless it can be used to illustrate something in the prose).--十八 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree there; you could justify using the promo poster instead of the manga cover, since the manga covers are deliberately not representative of the series (actually...nah, it's probably mostly blogs in Japanese talking about how the covers are cunningly made to attract a more moe audience, would be impossible to source), but I'm not sure I'm seeing how Lucy's dark side needs illustration. Doceirias (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, the images that Collectonian removed are excessive and in violation of WP:NFCC, but per Juhachi, some of them may be utilized to reflect part of the plot. The Diclonius section is really excessive and needs to go, as it violates WP:WAF and simply needs to be summarized better. That and the article should be merged or deleted. And why the hell is there edit warring over the infobox? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Shall I update the rationales for the images then? ætərnal ðrAعon 09:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

To be brief, if anyone reverts someone again I'm going to lock the page until you guys can solve this. That means; I don't care if you disagree with someone's edit, bring it up here, don't go reverting. Please don't make me lock it; we're all mature here, surely we can handle some civilized discussion? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wont edit again until we have a concensus. I think we've gone past our three reverts. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we get the article in line with MoS and the relevant WikiPolcies and worry about the images after the content is in place. I'm tired of debating it. I still disagree about with their removal, but it will be easier make deicisions about images after the article is in better shape. For now, I gonna go get a scanlsation of the manga. I think we can all agree that the plot section needs to shrink and that there needs to be less of a focus on the anime. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

I've noticed that many articles on video games, FAs included, actually quote from cutscenes and dialogue in the game and use them as inline citations. Is this passable to make GA/FA standard in this article? It did for several video game FAs. ætərnal ðrAعon 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Only for actual plot elements, such as character descriptions. All real-world statements, and interprative discussion of plot or characters must be sourced from outside the works. In such cases, however, quotes themselves are not needed, only a proper book citation to a specific page (or pages) of a manga volume (using {{cite book}} preferably), or to an episode with {{cite episode}}. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian Language?

Does anyone know why the Russian Wikipedia tagged this page? From what I can understand of the article, this article looks to be more developed than that one. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I'm going to remove it, as a check of the Russian Wikipedia does not support the claim that it is a featured article there. Maybe a mistag? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Delisted - June 10, 2008

As per my original message[4], Elfen Lied has now been delisted as a GA. The image issue was taken care of, some MoS fixes were done, and I myself fixed the issue with the manga chapter table. However, the majority of the other issues have been left unaddressed. The article has a vast amount of unreferenced statements, failing GA criteria 2. Specifically:

• "Differences between media" is completely unreferenced, making it original synthesis.
• Nothing in the character section is referenced, though it contains statements that appear to be interpretative rather than straight statements of plot summary.
• All of "Diclonius" is unsourced, though again it contains interpretative statements
• "Style and themes" also is mostly unsourced, though it is interpretative and provides analysis the series and its characters
• "Production" is mostly unsourced
• "Anime" has only one sourced statement, though it contains what can be considered "statistics"

Additionally, of the references given, some are not refs at all. Refs 4 & 5 are unreferenced statements that needs references of their own. Ref 19 is a dead link. Ref 21 is a personal blog and fails WP:RS. The plot section is too long, while the manga section is too short. This fails criteria 3. The prose needs work and the article needs a copyediting (from a non-involved editor), failing criteria 1. After these issues are fully and properly addressed, I highly recommend a peer review and then renominating for GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you have stated here. As far as a plan of action, I think I'll get to work on the Character list and try bring it back up to par. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "Style and themes" and "Production" are both referenced from at least 3 sources each. I've done copyediting to improve the prose for two weeks. Most of the information in the paragraphs is taken from the sources cited within the sections. Besides, a character summary doesn't really need inline citations. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Character summaries with interprative statements, like the ones in this article, do. 3 sources do not source the ENTIRE section, only a few minor statements. That is a section of pure interpretation and requires sources from reliable sources.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the information of a whole paragraph was referenced from a single site, how do we work it out? ætərnal ðrAعon 10:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Which paragraph is referenced from a single site? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

All of them in the "Style and themes" section. Finally, we're getting along. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If a paragraph is referenced from a single source, the source should be at the end of the paragraph. If the same source is used for a whole section, it should appear at the end of each paragraph. Any direct quotes should also have the source noted immediately after. One thing to be cautious of, though, particularly in a section like themes, is to not use a single source for all of it, because then one could argue it was only one person's opinion. If other reliable sources also note the same themes and styles, that would be good to source to multiples. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal of Diclonius (Elfen Lied)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I already know that most of this article has to go, as it is unsourced. But I thought I'd set up a merge proposal so we could salvage what we can and get rid of the unnecessary article. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I also was wondering if we should merge the music articles into this page, or into a separate music page. Having pages for individual songs seems a bit unnecessary. My ultimate goal would be that we could get this down to just the group of related Elfen Lied articles (which would be easily identified by their title (and perhaps delete the category). --Kraftlos (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we're making sense. I would oppose the merge of the songs into one article and rather merge them into this article as it adds to its value. ætərnal ðrAعon 11:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Same as with Lucy/Nyu, the topic isn't notable enough to stand alone per WP:FICT. For the individual songs, I'd recommend merging to the episode list, following the formatting and example of our featured episode lists. For this article, a prose section on the CD releases would be preferred.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, per Collectonian. Nice to see everyone's heads finally cooling off, let's hope it stays that way. *crosses fingers* —Dinoguy1000 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a separate proposal to merge what little information from the Lucy and Nyu page we can use into characters page. I think a soundtrack or music section would be appropriate on the main page, the stubs for the individual artists could stay, but merge the songs into a music section on this page. I don't recall ever seeing music on an episodes list. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of this year's featured episode lists to illustrate my suggestion regarding the individual pieces of music: List of Trinity Blood episodes, List of True Tears episodes, List of Rental Magica episodes, List of FLCL episodes, and List of Night Wizard episodes. For the CDs/soundtracks, we haven't had a series FA in quite awhile, so I'll point to some I've worked on (all B class and all but the last have been peer reviewed), to show what I mean: Wolf's Rain (all soundtracks), Tokyo Mew Mew (mix of soundtracks and character CDs), and Blood+ (all soundtracks). Hope that helps clarify things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks really good. I'll just go and make that edit now. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I merged Lillum, but I think "Be your girl" should be either kept as a stub or merged with the artist's article. There really isn't anything there that would be relevant to an Elfen Lied article that isn't already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftlos (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since its already tagged for notability, feel free to "be bold" and redirect it to the artist's article as it does fail WP:MUSIC. :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the merge of Diclonius only if the Diclonius section was restored in the article. ætərnal ðrAعon 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what merging it means? Or are you saying you don't want it just lumped in with the plot? Doceirias (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a sub-section of the plot focusing on the Diclonius but Collectonian doesn't want it there (one of our disagreements), so she deleted it. As a result, I believe if Diclonius were to be merged that section should be put back up. ætərnal ðrAعon 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The MoS seems to show a rather strict set of sections to have in an article, but it would seem proper to discuss diclonius in their own subsection as it's the focus of the anime. I think this should probably go under plot, in its own subsection, not as a loose paragraph or two. Much of the separate article is unreferenced, we should salvage what we can and make the subsection roughly 2-3 paragraphs. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, articles don't have to follow the structure laid out in the MoS to the letter. The MoS is a guideline, not a set of rules. So, a section on the "Diclonius" is possible.

Also, I feel I need to remind all involved that "one huge additional issue is the lack of balance" (AnmaFinotera). If the article is still biased towards the anime by the end of Collectonian's two week grace period, it may be stripped of its GA-status even if all other issues are addressed.--Nohansen (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, if a seperate Diclonius section is added back into this article, the best place for it to go would be as a subsection of the "Characters" section. —Dinoguy1000 16:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense.Kraftlos (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Who actually has the power to strip the article of its GA status?

I mean, since the manga is not well-known anywhere near the anime, doesn't it still make sense for the article to be anime-centred? I believe there are several reasons as to why the article should be able to reach GA or FA even if it is anime-centred or balanced. Firstly, the manga was not necessarily a prequel to the anime. The manga was not complete even as the anime was being made, and thus there are substantial differences. The manga was also never released outside Japan, and thus most people outside Japan consider the anime to be the "first" of the media; and besides, this is an English-language encyclopedia. I haven't read the manga, could I request someone who has to provide more detail towards the manga though? ætərnal ðrAعon 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much any editor can delist a GA provided time was given to clean up (which I have done, with 2 weeks given instead of the 1) and the article no longer meets the GA requirements. This one does not as detailed in my first message. If the issues are not fixed, including the unnecessary imbalance, it will be delisted. The article will then either have to finished being fixed and renominated for GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can. Per the deletion of Diclonius, I've restored the section into the plot.

• This is a merge, not a deletion, anyway. I've made improvements to the grammatical statements and sentence structure, removed weasel words, and changed the general tone of the article. Tick for copy-editing.
• Using the official Elfen Lied website, I've added more inline citations. Tick for referencing, but for FA nomination would need more.
• I've got this five-paragraph guideline for plot summaries, but there are too many side-plots in the series, so it's done in six paragraphs. If it looks long, it's probably because of the image. Tick for plot length.

Now all I need for keeping it GA and possibly nominating it for FA is to make the article more manga-centred. Since I haven't read the manga, I'll need help here. ætərnal ðrAعon 06:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if we balance the article as far as Manga to Anime content, we could relist this article. I'm reading the manga right now, so when I have enough info, I'll take a stab at it. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looked like the agreement was to merge the diclonius, which I think already happened. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Article progress

• Elfen Lied: Diclonius has been merged into the page. Currently B-Class.
• List of Elfen Lied characters: Lucy and Nyu merged into the page. Currently adding manga references, copy-editing, etc. Currently C-Class.
• List of Elfen Lied episodes: Song references merged to the page. Currently Start-Class.
• List of Elfen Lied chapters: Still missing chapter information for the last volume of the manga. Currently Start-Class

What do we need to do now? I know all these pages could use more references. I'm currently focusing on characters. If someone could do some more with the reception and trimming the plot, that would be good. We also need to balance the content of this page with the manga. I think we're making progress! Good job everyone! --Kraftlos (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For this article, things to do include addressing the tagged issues. As you already noted, the plot needs work, adding the manga info, expanding other sections as we can. In particular, I think the lack of courses on interprative stuff, checking existing sources to ensure they are WP:RS, and removing anything that can't be sourced. To that end, anyone working reading the manga? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took a break from editing this article to cool down from the GA debate. Had exams too, lol. Refreshed now, I'll be targeting character and episode lists and finding additional references to back up the "Themes" and "Reception" in the main article. The themes are important if wewant it to be comprehensive enough. As for making the article less anime-centric, have we found someone who has read most or all of the manga to balance it out? ætərnal ðrAعon 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought someone said they were going to read it, but now I can't remember who :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the manga right now, about 30% through. I've been throwing in references to the character list as I come accross them. If anyone wants to do the same for the anime for multiple references, that would be good. Some of the characters descriptions have significant gramatical errors and the minor characters have way too much info. I also stumbled accross an interview with the director and a review in the Nov'06 issue of Newtype magazine. It's 4 pages, so it should have some good information. --Kraftlos (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently watched the whole series and rewrote the OVA summary accordingly, and I intend to watch everything over again and rewrite the other summaries as time permits. Other than that, I *may* see about getting my hands on a copy of the manga (no comment as to how ;) ) and help out as I can there. —Dinoguy1000 07:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I watched this series not too long ago, and, after Death Note, it is the best anime I have ever seen. I would help improve this article if I had the time these days. When I do get the time to improve it, whenever that is, I will certainly lend you guys a hand in fixing up this article. The thing is, though, by the time I become free to do just that, this article might not need my help, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only thing i can say to that, is that if you really wanted work on it, you'd find the time. I guess there's only so much time and there are a ton on anime articles in dire need of help. If you could lend a hand, that'd be great. Wishful thinking wont help the articles.  :-P --Kraftlos (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that if I "really wanted to work on it, [I'd] find the time". There are plenty of things people really want to do but don't have the time for. It's not really "wishful thinking". I was just stating that I might be able to help with this article one day. Truth is...I don't have the time right now to work on it, just as I already stated. I barely have the time to attend to other articles on Wikipedia. You didn't have to get snipey there. But if I bugged you, which it seems that I did, I didn't mean to. I just love this anime and wanted to join in about having seen it as well, and that, as said, I may be able to help one day. Some days I get good free time to go tweak articles or expand them, and I knew/know that that fact might one day apply to this article.

Anyway, peace. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just saying that a lot of people say they intend to work on certain pages and never do, including me. If you can help out, I hope you keep the page in mind. (and if I had a serious gripe, I wouldn't have smilied at you! :P) Hope to see you soon! --Kraftlos (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)