Talk:Elfen Lied

Archives: 1, 2

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)

Article Seems to be Lacking

I just finished watching the series and the ending being as it is, I came to the Wiki to see if links where provided or if it was at all mentioned a la The Sopranos finale. So, maybe so much not the main article, as there should be articles for the individual episodes, especially since it seems each episode seems to have a lot of continuity points that could be made. Not so much for breaking it, but for-shadowing and the such.

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)

Cultural references missing?

the mention of the poem is still there, but the article on the opening scene borrowing/ussing posses from paitings are gone' what happenen ? did someone delete the bit about the paitings?-WillTheWitch

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)

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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:15, 27 May 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)

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, 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? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)