Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
EVA This article is supported by the Evangelion work group.
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.


Where applicable, I'll be replacing the screenshots next to each episode with ones which actually appear in the episode (for instance, the Episode 1 picture depicts a scene that's not in the episode itself at all). For the others, I'll replace them with higher-resolution shots. --Tony Myers 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember, higher-resolution is not always better, since these will have to be used under fair use, and low-resolution is one of the criteria for being acceptable under fair use. --Gwern (contribs) 18:10 28 January 2007 (GMT)
I am already aware of that. But would a resolution of, say, 800x450 still qualify as fair since it is not DVD quality? If not, I'll scale them down. --Tony Myers 07:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As you might guess, it's kind of hard to say. To be a little paranoid and absolutely safe, I think VHS quality would be as high as one would want to go - for our purposes that might even be overkill, since you're just using thumbnails, right? --Gwern (contribs) 07:19 28 January 2007 (GMT)
They are automatically thumbnailed in the article, but clicking on the images takes you to full-size ones. I only updated the last two pictures in the article so far, and some of the DVD-captured pictures already in the article (such as the one used for episode 9, which is 704x480) are pretty much at the same resolution I'm using for my shots (PNG format, ≈640x480 pixels). In short, I understand where you're coming from, and I'm just trying to make sure people can see what's going on without having absolute reference-quality shots. --Tony Myers 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Best to get this stuff out of the way early rather than at peer review or something. --Gwern (contribs) 18:12 28 January 2007 (GMT)

When I created the guide, I was only able to use whatever images were already on Wikipedia, to insert them into the image slot for each episode. As I only used what was on hand, they usually don't fit too well (ep 1 image is actually from ep 7, some episodes I really could find no pic for and had to improvise, etc.) I was intentionally just doing this so they would be "placeholders", until better images could be found. Thanks. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


What level of detail do we want to go into with regard to the episode summaries? I was planning on rewatching the series (sooner or later), and so it wouldn't be hard for me to do some nice detailed plot summaries - but I don't want to bother with all the writing if people are just going to remove them or hack them down to 2 or 3 sentences while screaming "Cruft!". --Gwern (contribs) 18:12 28 January 2007 (GMT)

My goal in creating this page was, ultimately, to make individual articles on each episode, once the guide had been firmly established. Evangelion was one of the most popular and influential animes of all time, and there is a wealth of detail within each episode, so I think this is justifiable. However, I was going to wait a while just to make sure the "smoke had cleared", as it were, and no one was going to delete the new episode guide I wrote up (in a hurry, might I had) out of hand. Hey, if the half hour animated tv show "The Simpsons" gets to have individual episode articles, so does Evangelion. All is in preparation for the eventual Live Action Movie Trilogy and Rebuild of Evangelion, which will spark renewed interest in the story. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the descriptions for 25 and 26 TV version, because the previous ones said near nothing about the content of the episodes. I only joined Wikipedia today, however, and that's why my user name isn't signed to the edits. Xenofan 29A 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need sleep! I have Evangelion![edit]

At long last, each episode has its very own picture. Not to sound artsy-fartsy, but I tried to find ones which best illustrate the episodes in question. This meant both refurbishing some pictures (correcting aspect ratio, etc.) and taking new ones. This took a long-ass time to do, but it was kind of fun, and I even found a place for some of the most defining/classic shots in the series, like the rather creepy image of Naoko's chalk outline. Coming up, I'll work on correcting lots of stuff in the episode descriptions themselves, but it is 1:29 A.M. where I live (U.S. Central Time) and I am going to bed. Tony Myers 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They're great; might play around with them a bit (the pics don't show any of the Angels, but I think a pic of Eva 03 would be good; hey you know what would be a great shot? Right after Eva 01 is reactivated with the dummy plug, and Eva 01 and Eva 03 both have their hands around each others throats and are trying to strange each other. Otherwise fine. Now my true motive and hidden agenda is revealed: tomorrow I'm going to write up a full episode guide. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I had thought about that too (and actually, some of them do show the Angels featured in the episode). It's a nice "action" shot, but in the end and for the purposes of a one-shot-per-episode episode guide, I felt that the fight against EVA-03/Bardiel was secondary to Shinji's conflict; he's at the seat of a horrible power, one with the potential to end a human life, and has no control over it. Similarly, I didn't want to have a picture of EVA-00 holding the positron rifle or tossing the Lance of Longinus in Episode 22, because ultimately the episode is about Asuka. I'm not trying to project my interpretation of the show; I'm just focusing on the directly observable plot elements. On the Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) page, however, there's a pretty nice shot of EVA-03 strangling EVA-01 with its stretched-out arms. As for the episode guide, I'll let you go ahead with that, and I'll gladly proofread/revise it when you're done. Tony Myers 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I really liked the Eva 03 strangling Eva 01 pic, that's why I added it back, and I thought it was hard to tell what the entry plug image was, but then again its kind of smaller and hard to see when sized down that small (only closeups really work) so I guess it would be best not to reuse it. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I may decide to replace the "01's hand clutching the entry plug" with something similar to the picture you suggested, but for the time being I'd prefer it be left as is. For one thing, the above-usual quality of the "strangling" picture suggests that it came from a promotional image (however much its resemblance to a similar image from the episode) instead of a real screencap. I'm sorry if my reasoning seems rash, and I admit that I overreacted to your edit, but it isn't my wish to get into an edit war with you over this kind of thing. I'll look into whether a screencap of the strangling scene would be workable. Also, as for the pic from End with the mass-produced Evangelion that you asked about, I can make a wallpaper-ready version. What are the dimensions of your computer display? Tony Myers 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh no everything's fine. Standard 800x600. In other news, I have gone off the deep end and am growing a Gendo beard. They've got to cast that live action movie sometime...--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles[edit]

Hi. I see that somebody has started making episode articles. Are there active plans for them to contain more information that that which is shown in the edit summary? If not, then there is no need for individual episode articles. See List of Planetes episodes for example, or Talk:List of RahXephon media to see what I'm about.--GunnarRene 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was just trying to get the ball rolling, as it were, hoping others would pitch in. I'll be filling in more info soon. This may take several days. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Those two lists may be featured, but they suck horribly as articles. What's wrong with having a list pointing to individual fully fleshed out articles using our old friend {{main}}, in the best summary style? --Gwern (contribs) 23:01 6 February 2007 (GMT)
  1. If they suck, then please suggest improvements, or list them to be de-featured (Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. Wait a while with the RahXephon list though, since it's been recently featured).
  2. There's nothing wrong with fleshed-out articles, as long as they are more than ust a plot summary, and that they actually contain more information than what was in the list. (See Pilot (House), although even that article has a lot more plot summary than I like.)
  3. The summary and image are in the list to help identify episodes and give an overview of the series. Having this episode list too in the media article would have worked if not for the vast amount NGE media.--GunnarRene 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"suck horribly as articles". They're fine as lists which treat each entry in minimal detail as lists should (if I had problems with them, I would've said so. I watch all the RahXephon articles even if it's hard for me to keep up with what you do and figure out where you are removing stuff and where you're just changing and moving stuff around). I'm objecting to your suggestion that a list, limited by design, can ever substitute entirely for actual articles. And what's wrong with having a good plot summary? More than that would certainly be closer to the ideal, but we're not playing zero-sum games here, where a plot-heavy article is worse than none at all. --Gwern (contribs) 00:54 7 February 2007 (GMT)

I gave it an "A-6 treatment" and started basic episode guide pages for the first 6 episodes. I need fuller Plot summaries, as well as any new trivia or notes which might be helpful. These are far from the finished form. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 12:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the claim on the 13th Episode page which states that that angel is the only one defeated without the help of an Eva. In 16, for example, the Evangelions are sent out, but do nothing to defeat the angel. Likewise, in Episode 2, the Evangelion does not directly defeat the angel, because it self-dstructs. --Xenofan 29A 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It self-destructed because Eva 01 was killing it. Yes Eva 01 defeated Leliel. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 17:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have written the first three episode summaries. I'll have more time to do this once I finish my classes for this semester, but until then, I'll write one once in a while. --Xenofan 29A 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here: I'm more concerned with notes and trivia stuff because I think we've all seen every episode hundreds of times by now :) --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll probably find this deeply ironic, but for all the material I've read and written about Eva, I've only ever actually seen the series once. :) --Gwern (contribs) 01:55 28 April 2007 (GMT)
Same here; the only thing I've had repeated exposure to in terms of NGE is the manga. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonders of YouTube. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 14:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you watch Eva episodes in such a sucky interface and format? I have the DVD rips, I've just never watched them... --Gwern (contribs) 15:46 28 April 2007 (GMT)

Episode titles[edit]

Due to the translation, some episode titles are in full capitals. However, I'm guessing now that manual of style will win out over this? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the Anime Wikiproject's MOS (which stipulates that whatever the official episode names are should be the article name) prevail over the more general MOSs? --Gwern (contribs) 17:45 19 March 2007 (GMT)
Thanks, if that is indeed the case, I will revert them back to what they were. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 06:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how the translation affects the capitalisation. Please give us a link to these "official" episode names. And even if they do use caps, I say the MoS prevails and we should stop all this SHOUTING. After we're already decided it is correct the way - please give me a link to that decision as well. -- RHaworth 11:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, slick, easy on the attitude there. These titles are flashed in each episode at the end of the ad break, if I remember right; it shouldn't be difficult to find (or screencap) images of them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS prevails over whatever idiosyncratic capitalization rules other works use. Each organization has its own MoS and that's that. Wikipedia's relevant MoS is that the word of every title should be capitalized except for simple words and prepositions like the, of, by, etc. Certainly not every letter should be translated. I think the accidental capitalization of every word in a title is more a quirk of bad Japanese translation or typesets than anything intentional that we should follow. --Cyde Weys 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We already get enough flack for OR; why should we abandon the official translations and commonly used ones? Unless there's a source for lowercase titles, we should stay with what we have. We don't write "First Child" but "First Children"... --Gwern (contribs) 16:52 2 May 2007 (GMT)
Indeed. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode images[edit]

We kind of need those and stuff. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of admin-led jihad against fair use images in list articles. (See ANI; look for the Family Guy thread). My current advice is to create stubs for the 11 missing episode articles, and use the removed images in there; so far articles about episodes seem safe, and the usage will prevent them from being deleted as orphaned while everything is hashed out. I'd do it myself but got things to do right now. --Gwern (contribs) 05:25 2 May 2007 (GMT)
I put the images back in the table. I've been going through the images in the NGE-related articles and adding fair use templates to them, but I've been out of town for the last few days and probably won't get back to doing this until sometime tonight. When I do, I'll give the images in this article first priority. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure to read this discussion so you have an idea of what's going on. Adding "fair use templates" to the individual images isn't gonna cut it (I suspect you meant to say fair use rationale, but if you don't really have an idea of what's going on here, I would just recommend staying out of it. Copyright is serious business.). --Cyde Weys 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he did mean rationale. IIRC, they all have the appropriate templates already. --Gwern (contribs) 16:50 2 May 2007 (GMT)

Also, in addition to Cyde's comments, please DO NOT create stub articles for each episode unless you can be certain they satisfy our inclusion criteria. If they don't, they will be deleted and repeat offenders will be blocked. -- Nick t 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed through the discussion on the Family Guy episode list (not enough time ATM to read in detail) but as I understand it, the gist of the admin position seems to be that while a single image in an article about an episode of a TV show is permissible with proper tagging and fair use rationale, the episode list articles contain, in essence, a glut of images which stretch the "minimal fair use images" rule beyond its breaking point. Is this correct? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well. As well, Nick, this is a multi-billion dollar grossing series which is one of the most popular and influential anime of all time. I think each episode merits an article. --Gwern (contribs) 16:50 2 May 2007 (GMT)

I am very busy now, but I do plan on a MASSIVE amount of writing on the Eva articles starting within the next 48 hours, equal to all of my previous work combined. This was just bad timing. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Literal translations[edit]

So, in my past editing I've found the Literal Translation Project's translations of the NGE episodes to be quite useful (both for providing quotes and for checking anon edits like this one), but I'm getting tired of manually linking them when I happen to use them or just providing the quote. The URLs are very regular; what do the rest of you think about having a template like {{sww}} or something to link in each episode article? {{ltp}} doesn't seem to be taken. --Gwern (contribs) 19:18 2 May 2007 (GMT)

I think this is a good reference, but we should just cite stuff by saying "it's in episode 6" without being needing to go further. Of course, scripts may differ from the final version: I will cross reference these with YouTube copies. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what the YouTube copies are of. As this thread has made clear to me, the release history of the TV anime and movies is long and perplexing... But the project says they used the published scripts which are apparently based on the original TV dialogue. --Gwern (contribs) 16:31 3 May 2007 (GMT)

Protection edit[edit]

{{editprotected}} I request a minor spelling edit at the episode description of episode 16 "Splitting of the Breast". The word 'nanomters' should be 'nanometers'. I know really minor but every good correction helps in bettering wikipedia. ;) MisteryX 09:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to unprotect the page. It was protected only because of edit warring over the screenshot images. Nobody should add the images back until the discussion about them has settled. CMummert · talk 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The correction asked for by Mistery X has been made. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis sections in individual episode articles[edit]

I noticed a lot of the "Analysis" sections have been removed from the episode articles per WP:OR. I tend to agree that the tone of these sections violated that rule, but at the same time I think that there's still meat in that material that could be integrated back into the articles if it is rewritten. If I get time, I'm going to go through each episode article and see if this can be done; if not, then that's that. Anyone agree or disagree? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. I found some of V's analysis to be overly trivial or not well done, but that doesn't mean Folken's mass removals are the right solution. I think the analysis sections (or text performing the same function, whatsoever title it be under or section it be in) is what makes having articles separate from the plot summary article worthwhile. --Gwern (contribs) 13:03 11 June 2007 (GMT)
If some of my Analysis wasn't great, it was because I was just "trying to get the ball rolling"; create an Analysis, and then a dozen other people over time tweak, change, reorganize, it etc. until it becomes usable (like on all of the other episode guides) ; the answer wasn't to remove all of them. I mean if there's a specific problem with something, reword it instead of just removing the whole section, etc. Please fix stuff until you think it's up to par. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of analyses being good or anything. Wikipedia has precise rules over original research, and I'm sorry, but whether these analyses add meat to articles or not, we really cannot allow them. What I remove is only blatant original research, so there shouldn't be any problems with it.

Rules on WP might seem "unfair" or you might not see their use, but remember we're not on any blog or fan forum. We're on Wikipedia, with has worked for several years with certain rules, and we can't just ignore them for personal reasons.

I'll also add that systematically revert my edits, without providing any concrete justifications other than "I do as I please, go away", is not at all the right solution, and can bring other types of conflict (and by the way, some users here should read what "Ignore all rules" means before invoking it carelessly).

Now, I'm removing any OR I'll found in episode articles (and, I'm sorry, the official rule doesn't say that proper OR can be spared). If there are elements that are not OR, or that can be presented in a completely non-OR way, I'll have no problem with it. But please understand that 99% of what I remove, is blatant original research, speculations entirely from VVVVV, things that were never mentionned in the show, his own questionings and reasonings, his assertions of his own "truths", his own suppositions, and I'm sorry, but this kind of writings absolutely cannot be reworded into something rule-compliant, so VVVVV, sorry but large parts of your analyses (that's the heart of the problem, on WP, analyses are to be provided by external sources, critics or analysts, not by the users themselves) are going to be removed.

But anyway, this mass-removal of OR is the only solution, because I can't see what else could be done while still respecting the rules. It's better to start from 0, that to try to build a house with bad fundations.Folken de Fanel 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just now got home to see what had been done with this. Folken, did you cull anything that is popularly known to be debated about Evangelion? Part of the reason I wanted this material temporarily restored was that there seemed to be questions and conclusions V5 brought up that are known to be hotbeds of discussion about the series to this day, and that material was what I was wanting to try to re-incorporate...certainly not as conclusionary or questioning statements but more of a "these questions brought up in the episode are still being debated to this day"-type thing. It might still violate WP:OR, but I figured it'd be better to put the stone back on the table and chip away rather than take a jackhammer to it.
[/2 cents] Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Things which can only be related to forum talks are not likely to be notable and to provide reliable enough sources...If things can be supported by statements in the show or in the various official documents like the RCB or the PS2 game infos, then it can be included, however, if the conclusions are only the contributor's, there's not much chance that it can be included. I'll also add that, beyond 1 or 2 occurence of forum-discussed theories like the soul of Eva 00, everything I reverted was comments that I had never seen before on the net.Folken de Fanel 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, I never actually said "this person's soul is in Eva Unit 00"...I even outlined a little treatise on Talk:WEAVING A STORY about how it is impossible to reach a conclusion and a conclusion is not the goal. It 1-identified the major question raised by the series 2-listed the facts. Limiting the possibilities to Naoko vs Rei I here for a minute, someone kept trying to make the point that "it's the soul of Rei I and Naoko is impossible" which was more of an opinion than supported by facts, so I kept having to do reverts there, the point basically being "you can't just say, "no, it's not, so there" has to be supported by a list of counterpoints. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by original research here. Saying "wow, Kaworu represents part of a trinity" IS original research...that's why I removed that from episode 24 (I didn't write it). But I was trying to retain the list of facts cited from other episodes for or against one arguement or another about a major question of the series. Throwing the baby out with the two cents. I won't resist anything you do in removing this stuff as it's a struggle I won't win. Talk amongst yourselves. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 06:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There are absolutely no fact in what you wrote. "Naoko is in EVA 00" is supported by no fact whatsoever (can you show me a line in the episode where it is explicitely stated that Naoko could be in Eva 00 ?), it is your own speculation in front of a problem which has currently no solution. It is not yours to provide these solutions. Mere opinions don't have their place on Wikipedia if they only are the opinions of the contributor adding them.
What I mean by "original research" ? Just read the "No original research" article.
Saying "this unexplained event can possibly be explained because...", "we can think that", "maybe" is not "fact". It's original research. If it is not stated in episodes, if it is only your own suppositions and conclusions, it's original research. Also, using elements from other episodes to draw your own unpublished before conclusions on another (or conclusions not stated in the episode itself), this is called original research by synthesis. Folken de Fanel 10:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode names[edit]

The Japanese names and ADV translations for each episode should probably be incorporated into their respective articles. Agree/disagree?. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Xenofan 29A 04:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the English and Japanese episode titles are completely different? (If you're watching the DVDs with Japanese text translation subtitles, the Japanese title is translated at the beginning but the English version appears in the Act 2 start bumper.) {edit} And yes, I'm aware that it's not unique to this series, as witness the divergent Japanese and English titles in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes. Lee M (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article say that "Saigo no shisha" is translated as "The Final Apostle or The Final Dead"? "Saigo no" means "The last, end, conclusion", "Shisha" meaning "Messenger, Envoy, Emissary" or "Deceased, Causality" (an apostle is translated into Japanese as "shito"). "The Last Messenger" In this context its referring to Kaworu, (kind of like a apostle even though apostle isn't the correct translation), "The Last Causality" makes sense as Kaworu is the last Angel to die. Oddly enough, the DVD I have says the english translation of the episode is "The Final Angel". I would say this makes the most sense even though its not a 100% perfect translation (because angel is translated into Japanese as "Tenshi"). But I think its the easiest to understand and what its referring to. On a Japanese DVD I have the subtitles have a different translation and say "The Final Messenger (note: this can also be read as "The Final Death" or even phoenetically "The Final Seashore". which translation should we use?The Unbeholden (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging episode articles[edit]

I'm proposing the merging of the episode articles into the list. That is because the episodes can not establish their notability independently of the television series and they fail WP:EPISODE. I also noticed a great deal of original research in the "Notes" and "Analyst" sections of the episode articles along with a lot of trivial information (i.e. first appearances). --Farix (Talk) 14:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. None of the individual episodes are particularly notable, neither in Japan no here. The notes and analysis stuff is pretty pure OR, speculation, and trivia, none of which needs to be noted or should be in the articles. The articles also contain a number of non-free images, which per discussions in WP:NFCC could be seen as violating fair use. Merge here, then clean up this list to give it a proper lead section, references, etc and get it into good shape. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You may be able to establish notability of the finale, given how much it gets discussed in reviews as well as message boards, if only as an example of WTFery. So far, what I've found skirts the thin edge of WP:RS, and not enough of it, but something might come up in a dedicated search. Otherwise, yeah, merge, while tagging or trimming the WP:OR (I'd do the former myself, to give editors good-faith chance to source). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The last two episodes may be notable as a pair do to the controversy surrounding them that eventually lead to the movies. However, both episodes should be covered by one article instead of individual articles because they are notable as a pair, but not as stand alone episodes. --Farix (Talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, especially as they really are a two-part episode. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Still I prefer to see the sources required to establish those two episodes' notability and be able to support them in a standalone article. Until then, merge/redirect the episodes to the list like the others. --Farix (Talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I 100% agree that the last two episodes at least deserve their own article, I'm uncertain as to how much you can say about them; I heard the ending of The Prisoner actually had more coherency. Lord Seth (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting the process[edit]

I've started going through the episode articles and began to remove the things that are either original research or are simply trivial plot notes. I did leave behind a few notes that are better off incorporated into the plot summary, probably in the list article as well. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot argue with the above points that the episode articles do not conform to wikipedia's guidelines. I will comply with this review. As I created the episode articles and wrote most of the information in them, it is fitting that I aide in dismantling them. Please begin deleting all episode articles effective immediately. I suppose this is part of a larger TV episode review, as I saw similar things happening to the Avatar:TLAB episode guide which is now also just a list. No, my original "list of Evangelion episodes" contained adequate summaries (more or less adequate) for everything; no further merging is needed. In compliance with wikipedia's rules, just delete everything. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've finished merging/redirecting most of the episodes to the main list. There are four episodes that I didn't completely merge because they contain information on the extended scenes that was added in the Platinum Edition. Perhaps this information can be added to a seperate article covering the Platinum Edition or somehow incorporated into the main episode list. --Farix (Talk) 16:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for killing the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The articles were not "killed", they were merged into the list as best as I could manage. If they were "killed", they would have been deleted. And that requires going to WP:AfD. --Farix (Talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I *did* request that they be deleted. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to comply with GFDL, since the articles were merged in they can not be deleted but are instead redirected here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The episode articles don't qualify for any of the speedy deletion criteria. Besides, as AnmaFinotera already said, it's much better to redirect the articles as they are merged into the list. The redirects are beneficial because several other articles already link to them. --Farix (Talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I can see the merit of merging the individual episode articles into the list article, the biggest issue I have is that there are a LOT of links in other NGE articles to the individual episodes articles that are being used as references...will these eventually have to be cleared out? If so, I worry that some important information could be removed for not being sourced. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
All of the former episode articles redirect to the main list, specifically their entries on the list. The presence or lack of a wikilink to the episode article will not have any affect on WP:V or WP:NOR on the statement being cited. However, citing an episode to back up original research doesn't make what has been cited any less original research. I saw a lot of this in the episode articles. --Farix (Talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC), my next question/thought is, how are notes in articles that reference information no longer directly available because of the merges going to be handled? I was looking through Rei's article, and one of the first things that came to my attention was the note about the differences in Rei's behavior in ep. 26's "reality" and the "glasses" scene in episode 5. Since ep. 5's article has been merged, the description of the incident is no longer available for the reader, so that note in Rei's article doesn't really go anywhere. I assume that a bunch of rewrites are the solution, but I thought I'd bring this up. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some rewrites are probably needed. If nothing else, the article needs to be fixed up to properly use the {{cite episode}} template instead of the manual methods used now. If a description of the scene is needed, though, I think it should be in the character article to apply to that particular point rather than needing to be completely detailed in the episode list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me as a more basic question. Is it necessary to give every in-universe detail? The answer to that is no, but that's part of the problem with most fiction articles. Ideally, you should summaries the character's in-universe roll in a one to two paragraphs. The rest should be based on out-of-universe information about how Anno conceived and developed the character, the voice actor's interpretation of the character, and the critical reception to the character.
The idea here is to explain the real-world significants of the character, but not to be a replacement for watching the anime or reading the manga. And definitely not to explain the series beyond what Anno has already stated. --Farix (Talk) 11:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me also add that if you need to cite an episode, you should simply cite the episode. You should not cite a Wikipedia article on the episode. --Farix (Talk) 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

External links are broken[edit]

Everything listed in the External Links section are dead links. Apparently someone linked to some article backed up on the Way Back Machine, and those links no longer work. Can someone point them to somewhere that still works please? Dream Focus (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're online anymore. I linked to the IA backups since the Mainichi Times website no longer shows them up in searches, but it seems the robots.txt has locked it down so even IA can't show'em. Maybe convert them into print references? --Gwern (contribs) 19:00 11 April 2008 (GMT)

Image of Platinum set[edit]

Should this image be left here or moved to the NGE media article? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New question. I have this particular box set at home. Rather than using the non-free Amazon image, would it be better for me (or anyone who has this set) to take a picture of the set and upload it? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it matters except in theory - one less possible copyright/license holder. --Gwern (contribs) 16:23 18 February 2009 (GMT)

Does anyone care about a magazine that had between 20 and 623 people voting in a poll?[edit]

  • [1] It list 17 episodes that got votes, the least popular one having only 20 people voting for it, and the most popular one got 623 people votes. How is it notable? Magazines do polls all the time. The fact that out of 65,000 readers, they got less than 1% to vote on something, shouldn't be considered significant enough to be included in this article. Does anyone believe that listing the poll results that only 623 random people voted on, should be included? What about websites that do polls like this? Should we have those results as well? Also the edit summary was very rude: "why must everyone be so stupid?" I'm thinking the same thing about you right now, but I don't go blurting it out without reason. Dream Focus 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
NOt entirely sure, i've seen polls made it into video games but not exactly in anime before. if the polls are from fans who are suscribed to that magazine, then i'm not so sure it's really significant. I'm going to go with my gut and say no, but that would also mean the other polls in the characters might not be significant enough either.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that if such a small number of people bothered to vote, then it isn't really worth mentioning at all. When they quote Rotten Tomatoes or a major video game site, its because they have a lot more people voting in them. Dream Focus 04:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
it seems to be a NGE feature only and not compared to any other series, so it doesn't seem so important. and a way to tell how significant it is if it's number was mentioned as significant like maybe "the largest amount of votes ever to be placed on" or something. but again, i don't think the number mattesr, just how the source makes significance of it.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
DF, did you not read my entire edit summary? There's no point in me replying to you until you write something that suggests you actually understood my argument. --Gwern (contribs) 14:21 3 January 2011 (GMT)
What a good way to avoid a discussion. You insult me without reason, and tell me to look at the second result in a Google search [2]. That's a short mention about a magazine. [3]. Why the sudden rudeness and viciousness towards me? Dream Focus 21:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
@gwern, you avoid discussion just because you think we didn't understand you? even if we didn't, then that's even more reason for discussion. I don't see why you wont discuss because we don't understand. make it clearer. But i'm still unsure of this. So maybe someone else with more experience should be consensus.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I ignored the confrontation back then, but seriously, can we get more feedback on this now? Its just ridiculous to have that in the article. More opinions please. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I replied at WT:ANIME, but I'll comment here as well in case people don't also read that discussion. Basically, to get the numbers in the poll, at a minimum over 6000 people must have voted (assuming each person only voted once). That seems like a reasonably large sample, and much larger than 20-623 people as you are suggesting. Both the magazine and the poll itself are fairly well known. I think it is reasonable to cite it in the article. However, I don't like the table listing each episode's individual result. Instead, I think it should be described in prose, mentioning perhaps the top 2 episodes and saying that 17 in total placed in the top 100. But regardless, I think it is fine to include and that it isn't a tiny poll. Calathan (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I took the liberty of summarizing the results and properly (I hope) citing the source. Hopefully I didn’t leave out anything important. I’d be more than happy to hear of any problems with how I handled it. —Frungi (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, it would be nice for the “Reception” section to include more than one source. Or it could be removed entirely, I think—or is it common for episode list articles to include them? —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
While it doesn't seem like many episode lists have reception sections, I think they should whenever there are sources on the reception of individual episodes. I think it is good to have a reception section in this article, and adding more sources to it would be good. Calathan (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

refs without source[edit]

The current source that. Has ust a quote does not help. Apparently its being used more than once....however there is no source. Its quote with no proper back bone for reliability.Lucia Black (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion. Instead of being lazy and removing it, or being lazy and complaining, you fix it.
(How would one do that, given an extensive quote from an article, and access to the Internet? How would one find the original article? Gosh, I have no idea! You'll just have to figure it out on your own.) --Gwern (contribs) 02:43 18 December 2011 (GMT)
Or how about instead of being snarky and belittling, you do it? You clearly know how. —Frungi (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Giving Lucia Black fish never worked, so I switched to trying to teach her to fish with the only thing that seems to get through even a tiny bit, sarcasm. --Gwern (contribs) 00:51 16 November 2012 (GMT)
This si stupid, you don't get to choose who you teach, especially in the expense of the article's quality. I ccan't find it, and simply expecting wont get anything out of it. If i remove it, i will have all the right and reason to do it.Lucia Black (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If i post it here, it's because i can't find the source. If i found it, i would'nt have bothered.Lucia Black (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nerv or NERV? "A.T. Field"? "EVA"? "Tokyo 3"? Spelling issues[edit]

First, is it Nerv or NERV? From the movie (Rebuild 1.0) I'd say, it's "NERV". I haven't found any support of the mixed case "Nerv"... So I'd say it'll be all-caps NERV. I think it compares well with RAID, which isn't spelled "Raid" either. Except of course that a RAID is real and NERV isn't[citation needed]. Rebuild 1.0 shows two different "NERV" logos: one (the old one) on the floor opening up to reveal the elevator shaft near 16:02, and another one near 05:53 (for reference, the N2 bomb explodes at 03:12).

Second, "A.T. Field"? I doubt it. Not as ubiqitous as NERV, but "AT Field" is on-screen more than once, mostly in the CGI parts (Rebuild again). WP:MOS regulations make that an "AT field" with small 'f'. Right? - Sources: "AT FIELD" in CGI at 19:12 (22 seconds after EVA-01 crashes into the angel's AT field), but "A.T. FIELD" in the CGI before Ramiel's attack. However, the latter CGI is bogus, as it says, "TARGET OBJECT STATIONARY" while Ramiel is clearly moving. Which disqualifies that CGI from being a 'reliable source'...

EVA or Eva? I'm unsure about that one. Eva is (among other languages) the German name of Eve, but a CGI sequence about 15:00 into Rebuild 1.0 shows the "Cage : 07 EVA-01" spelling. So, while stemming from "Eva", "EVA" may still be the in-universe 'official' spelling.

Tokyo 3 is spelled "TOKYO-III", for example on the buildings, in "TOKYO-III STANDARD STRUCTURE" during the fight against the 5th angel (Shamshel), when EVA-01 is hit by Shamshel's whips.

IMO, the spelling in the NG:E articles should be, NERV, AT field, and Tokyo-III. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 09:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


The article currently says that, toward the end, Evangelion “turn[ed] into metafiction.” My dictionary defines metafiction as:

fiction in which the author self-consciously alludes to the artificiality or literariness of a work by parodying or departing from novelistic conventions (esp. naturalism) and traditional narrative techniques.

I don’t believe that this occurs in the show, and nothing in the article appears to support it, so I’ve tagged it with a “[citation needed]”. —Frungi (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Reworded it. Also, added attribution for the source of the quote immediately following it. If the person who added that quote happens to read this: Please don’t leave that information out. It’s important to know where you got it from, as well as the publication it’s originally from. —Frungi (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The quote immediately following was attributed, so I'm not sure what your problem with it was.

As for 'metafiction', no one would dispute that description who has seen it. If one insisted on a RS using that exact specific term, one wouldn't be too hard to find one; the key producer Otsuki describes the TV ending with a word one would translate as 'metafictional' in , is used multiple times in the 2.0 Complete Records Collection of interviews published in 2010, or if one wants official non-fan-translated English sources, a short visit to my CSE will turn up 2 usable references on the second page, and as one would expect of an academic term like 'metafiction' or 'metafictional', the same search query will bring up many likely-looking candidates in Google Scholar or Google Books. --Gwern (contribs) 04:13 4 December 2012 (GMT)

It was attributed only by the title of the interview. There was no mention of the publication it appeared in, the translator, the source of the translation, or even the fact that it was a translation. Source information should be as complete as possible, so that readers have as little difficulty as possible verifying it.
And as I said, the definition of “metafiction” (at least according to the Oxford American Dictionary) is inconsistent with what it was applied to here. If it’s widely regarded as such, then of course it should be so here (and sourced, and preferably explained), but otherwise, it seems inaccurate. Is there something wrong with how it reads now? —Frungi (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean and avoid possible confusion, when I say that calling it “metafiction” should be explained, I mean that it should be made clear to the reader why the word applies. —Frungi (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. That is exactly what Tsurumaki was talking about: the breakdown of the work is a metafictional comment about itself. That's what the word means, that's what happened, and anyone who watched the series would agree, quite aside from the triviality of finding sources describing the ending using that specific word! What on earth is your problem? --Gwern (contribs) 17:25 4 December 2012 (GMT)
As I’ve said, my issue was that that the meaning of the word didn’t seem to apply to the show. Read the definition I pasted at the beginning of this discussion. Tsurumaki didn’t say in that quote that they were alluding to the series’ artificiality or literariness (and I don’t recall any such allusions myself), but that they couldn’t help but let their stress show in their work. I don’t understand why you seem to be making such a big deal of this here when you haven’t touched that text since I’ve replaced the word.
If anyone else wants to chime in and tell one or the other of us that we’re wrong and end this argument, I for one would welcome it. —Frungi (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You basically said it clear as day. This doesnt confirm the series turned to metafiction and even if the essay said so, it doesnt seem really like its true. We can only say that is what manabu tsuribe had said.Lucia Black (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Run times[edit]

does anyone know the run time for these episodes? how long are they? thanks. skakEL 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

TV shows that air for a half hour generally have a runtime of 23 minutes or so. NGE is one of these. —Frungi (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is EoE the "Correct" ending?[edit]

What is the source for End of Evangelion being the "correct" ending of the series as opposed to simply an alternate ending? If there is a source, it should be added, otherwise the wording should be changed as "correct" implies the original ending was somehow "incorrect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)