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.

Consistency of title translation convention across Evangelion-related articles on Wikipedia

I preface the following with recognition that, for novelty, the creators of the franchise intentionally gave a different name to instalments of the franchise in their western release to what would be the accurate translation of the original Japanese title. I assume this intention provides justification for putting the English-market title for each instalment in the article titles even where the original Japanese-market release is what is being discussed foremost, or the Japanese-market releases of the work as a synecdoche for all releases of the work.

1995-1996: The TV series. The Japanese title of the series, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, translates (liberally) to 'Gospel Of The New Century'. In the west it is titled 'Neon Genesis Evangelion'.

1997-1998: There was then a project to create an Evangelion Feature film. This project was released in several goes, at varying stages of completion, all under the banner of '新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 劇場版', which translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie' (or 'The Feature Film' instead of 'The Movie'; take your pick). These 'several goes' are as follows:

March 1997: A preview movie. The Japanese title, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 劇場版 DEATH & REBIRTH シト新生, translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie: Death And Rebirth'. Some Japanese publicity materials also feature English titles 'Evangelion:Death' and 'Evangelion:Rebirth' for the two parts. In the west it is titled 'Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth'. July 1997: A movie that serves as an alternate ending to the TV series. The Japanese title, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン劇場版Air/まごころを、君に, translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie: Air / Sincerely Yours'. In the west it is titled 'The End Of Evangelion'. I don't know whether the title 'The End Of Evangelion' was ever used in the original Japanese release's graphics and materials but it was definitely not the primary title used e.g. in advertisment posters and announcements there, at the time or since. March 1998: The final, collated version of the film. The Japanese title, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 劇場版 DEATH(TRUE)²/Air/まごころを、君に, translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie: Death(True)² / Air / Sincerely Yours'. Japanese publicity materials also bear the English title 'Revival Of Evangelion'. In the west this was originally released on home video in the USA as 'Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Feature Film', but since then the convention has become to split it into two features, 'Death(True)²' and 'The End Of Evangelion' with no intermission linking them like the 'Revival' release has - this is the case on the 2019 Netflix streaming release, for example.

This can be gleaned already from the pictures used in the articles for the above. I think the articles can be amended to make the difference in titles between markets clearer since, for instance, the section on 'Revival' in the 'Death & Rebirth' article until I amended it just now suggested that 'Revival Of Evangelion' was "re-named" to 'Evangelion: The Feature Film' on its blu-ray release which is incorrect as 'Revival' was always a secondary title to distinguish that last stage of the over-arching 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie' project in the first place and the blu-ray set bears the name of the work in Japanese as it was originally given in Japanese upon its theatrical release. I don't own the recent 2021 USA blu-ray box set, but if this sentence was referring to that box set and not the 2015 Japanese one & the western-market title 'Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Feature Film' is being used for the collated discs, as it was never called 'Revival Of Evangelion' in the west in the first place, it is incorrect to describe the feature as being 're-named' from 'Revival' as both markets are then still using the original title given to the work in each market. I think there are examples like this in the body of each of the articles for the above that omit or conflate the Japanese/English naming conventions described above, that could be amended.