Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion

The title

TeenAngels, despite claiming to be familiar with MOS:INTRO, you seem to be having trouble following it. Including the Ancient Greek translation of the title in the lead is too much information, especially for the first sentence. The lead should only summarise the key points of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OT: Your User sign seems to have some problem. Seriously: 10 words more about the two-titles-question of the show are too much information? Can you prove that? Are we talking about the normal title - translation with nihongo first sentence or not? Isn't the translation in the nihongo template quite different from the official English title? Isn't a Japanese animated fiction largely distribuited and released under both titles? If your answer is (rationally) "yes", you have the upshot.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you prove that the ancient Greek translation of the title is so important that it deserves to be almost the very first thing the reader learns about the article subject? Popcornduff (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking why the first words of the article are the title itself? Are you seriously asking why we put the nihongo template in the incipit of the first paragraph as in the all others articles of anime series or mangas?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEADALT: "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability ... Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence." The Wikipedia MOS for video games actually recommends putting the Japanese titles as footnotes rather than including them in the lead (see WP:JFN). This is to maintain readability. As far as I know, there's no such guideline for anime or film articles, but perhaps there should be.

Please stop screeching things at me in italics, it makes you sound hysterical. Popcornduff (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stop being repetitive with the title. It's already mentioned once. And the part that it is based on "Classical Greek" is entirely your own original research. —Farix (t | c) 10:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If there's something unuseful for Wikipedia, and for every encyclopedic discussion of course, is to accuse other opinions to be "Original research" with complete basic ignorance of Classical Greek, evidence and source. @TheFarix: My dear Farix, the Ancient Greek origin is explained in two souces, and this make me seriously think you didn't read the article and the sources. Anime intersections by Cavallaro brillantly explain the international title origin from neos, genesis and euangelion. This is mentioned by Yuichiro Oguro, editor of LD edition and style.fm site. And, of course, in the official Gainax site, mentioned in the article and avaiable with Web Archive or Webcitation. But that's not the question: IIRC (I'm currently from mobile phone, sigh) Anno (you know, major writer of this Japanese animated series), in an interview mentioned in Themes (I wrote a brief summary in my previous edit: you read this?) mention the chose of the two tiles as well the double meaning. Can the reader primarly know that the show is released with two titles with two meanings? Is this useful for a brief, encyclopedic sentece fro a reader? The answer is simple and clear. Are the passages mentioned by Popcornduff saying something specific with these? Uhm, I don't think so. Bias is not the answer. And, for last: if with Italics you mean nihongo, you didn't read the first paragraph you constantly want to edit, since the Nihongo is the template. This makes me thing about the very level of your arguments. PS: We are talking about the English/international title. You just removed the brief and necessary explanation of the name of the page. Is LEADALT respected and mentioned with rationality? Uhm. I don't think so. -TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You're rambling. Can you summarise your arguments succinctly, please? Popcornduff (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You're rambling. A h. You're rambling. Are your argoments clear too? Mmm. It's so difficult to read my intervention and use Common sense? Well, let's start: is the title supposed to have a Nihongo (ugh, I t a l i c) template with the original kanji/katakana title and translation? Answer: yes. Clear? Ok: stay tuned. Is, in the NGE case, the kanji and katakana a perfect countrepart of the International title used as title of the Wiki page? Answer: no. And, last but no least: there's some specific [s p e c i f i c: incipit is a brief summa is not a good citation] supposed to be agaist a brief (10 words: yes, you're discussing about ten words) explanation, summarized and incisiva of both largely-know titles? This is Common Sense and rationality. I have to summarize again? You mentioned all this but without context and valid reason to delet the 'superfluo' passage.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

EoE was not the originally intended ending

EoE being the originally intended ending that had to be scrapped in favour of 25/26 is a myth. 26 was the originally intended ending. The myth comes from the fact that the first half of EoE is based on the original episode 25, but it was scrapped due to time, not budget, constraints. Anno, and other members of the production, have consistently presented episode 26 as the originally intended ending, and one that they are satisfied with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldomtom2 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article

Hey guys, could someone please check the edits made by an IP on 21/22 August 2018 for any errors on information about the series. I was looking at the edit history, and it seems that some information, especially about the manga adaptation, was changed quite a bit. I'm not too familiar with the series myself, which is why I'm not editing it, so could someone who knows quite a bit about it please fact check the edits made? I know that one edit made was incorrect factually (in the infobox, the Rebuild films was moved from "Related works" to "Films" and placed it as a subset of EoE), and there's quite a few grammatical, style and spelling errors, so could this please be checked too? Thanks. -Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really a Wikipedia user and don't know anything about editing, but the sentence about the series being adapted from the manga is completely untrue. Evangelion is an original series, a manga adaptation of which was published before the series aired to create interest in the show. 128.230.164.130 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I also checked with a friend who knows more about the series, and also agreed with that being incorrect. Therefore I've changed it back. -Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaking up the Summary

I added the part about Eva from the mecha anime summary to this summary to try and make the paragraph about themes a bit more readable and to give some context to the thematic elements present. Breaking it into two paragraphs seems more natural I think. Just wanted to explain my change, thanks. 86.41.241.92 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Death threats

Hello, you're probably all aware about the myth death threats in EoE. This was recently removed in an edit, but I wonder if maybe it shouldn't be mentioned in the article anyway, with clarification that it is in fact a myth, especially because it is so enduring. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there are any acceptable sources out there that aren't fan made, as even several "professional" articles reproduce this myth.

FelipeFritschF (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

^ I believe either the recent Japanese documentary on Anno around the time of 3.0+1.0's release, or a prominent Japanese interview/article promoting the same, mentioned that Gainax staff in fact typed up and handwrote the 'threats' (mostly letters of appraisal, not criticism, if you translate screenshots of the text) that are seen in the film. N.B. They definitely received some abuse in reality, and I believe the photos of graffiti over the Gainax studio used in the film are real, but it's the scale and intensity that appears to have been wildly exaggerated in the west.