Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Neon Genesis Evangelion has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Further reading[edit]

Trawling through WorldCat, I noticed two books that might be worthwhile future sources:

  • Evangerion kenkyu josetsu., by Kabutogi, Reigo. (OCLC: 63073050). A Japanese book held in the Toronto Public Library (of all places). It's listed as fiction, but it's description is "Pedantry of neon genesis evangelion", which seems to me to indicate it's criticism of some sort, and so potentially useful.
  • On a more conventional note, "Neon genesis evangelion: the unofficial guide" (2004; ISBN: 0974596140), by Kazuhisa Fujie, trans. by Martin Foster, is in English and explicitly about "mysteries and secrets". Certainly sounds useful, and odds are we could cite quite a bit of speculation from it, which would definitely be good. I've used this.

So! Fellow editors: keep your eyes open for these books! (If you read Japanese and live in Toronto especially!) --Gwern (contribs) 01:04 18 December 2006 (GMT)


I'm having some trouble tracking down some Anno quotes. There's an April 14 1996 radio interview (shortly after the March 27 finale) where Anno famously said "anime fans need to have more self respect" and need to "come back to earth", but I can't find a transcript.

This also says "According to Anno, from episode 16 on, he began reading books about human psychology and became very interested. He wanted to explore "what the human mind is all about inside." "I wrote about myself. My friend lent me a book on psychological illness and this gave me a shock, as if I finally found what I needed to say," he says in the November Newtype." which I think would be a bangup source to use for some of the psychology-related {{cn}}s, but I can't really verify it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:43 10 March 2007 (GMT)

Ok, I'm satisfied with what I have for the latter issue, but I still have diddly-squat on the radio interview. :( --Gwern (contribs) 06:02 21 March 2007 (GMT)

Australian revenues[edit]

Not really sure where to put this:

'Anime series Bubblegum Crisis was the first officially licensed title, but early success required a cash investment from his family. Anderson's mother put up $A20,000 to help pay for the rights to anime masterpiece Neon Genesis Evangelion.

"My mum has a lot of faith in me," he laughed. The hunch paid off, with SBS Television buying the broadcast rights, gaining exposure that caused video sales three or four times above expectations.

"We paid something like $US20,000 and grossed $A1.5 million," he said.'[1]

--Gwern (contribs) 19:12 29 June 2009 (GMT)

Another source for an Oz broadcast:

"Anime will continue to seep into the mainstream market in the USA, Europe and Australia. The recent broadcasting of EVANGELION on Australian TV and the positive response is a very groovy sign." --Gwern (contribs) 04:40 13 December 2009 (GMT)

Assorted accolades[edit]

From which has pulled together a nice list of praise-reviews: NGE TV:

“Neon Genesis Evangelion is a worthy successor to Top o Nerae: Gunbuster! and Secret of Blue Water…It will very probably join the likes of Super Dimensional Fortress Macross and Mobile Suit Gundam in the ranks of the groundbreaking mecha series. This only shows that, contrarily to the rumors, Studio Gainax was not dead. It was only taking a breather and preparing its next attack upon the unsuspecting animation world.” –Protoculture Addicts

“If there is one series out there worth buying more than once, it’s Neon Genesis Evangelion” –Protoculture Addicts
“Mysterious and ornate as EVA’s conspiratorial story of esoteric theology and ultra-tech mecha is, it is Anno’s resolute urgency of NOW that burns through, and it was (presumably) this thing that audiences in Japan sensed – that because this anime show had actually MEANT something to the real person who made it, it might mean something real to them as well.” –Animerica

“One of the greatest anime series of all time…” –

Of the Platinum releases:

“Neon Genesis Evangelion was anime’s perfect storm. It’s a phenomenon like Star Wars, Harry Potter or The Matrix. Plenty of works are going to try to reproduce it, but ultimately it will stand apart.” –Aint It Cool News

“You’ll enjoy the ride” –Chris Johnston, Newtype USA
“…still ahead of its time on most levels.” , “The story itself is among the top sellers for a reason, the sheer quality of the show befits a premium release on DVD, but the value of the new set will be likely to get a lot of people off the fence and pick this one up.” –Don Houston, DVD Talk

“‘If you haven’t seen it make an appointment to view it when it airs on Cartoon Network, then pick up the, at this time definitive, Platinum Edition. It is a work that is best suited for a format that allows the viewer to pause, rewind, and rewatch.’” –Scott Green, Ain’t It Cool News

It would be well worth-while to track down the original articles. --Gwern (contribs) 21:32 30 January 2010 (GMT)

Mainichi Times articles[edit]

Good news! Someone managed to dig them up from somewhere:

Unfortunately, that doesn't include the episode reviews/summaries, but we can't have everything. --Gwern (contribs) 01:13 28 April 2010 (GMT)

Split off[edit]

I took this section from the ailing NGE topic article:

Though the original plot line for Evangelion remained relatively stable through development, production proved to be turbulent: Sadamoto's authorship of the promoting manga caused problems, as multiple publishers felt "that he was too passé to be bankable";[1] the stylized mecha design that Evangelion would later be praised for was initially deprecated by some of the possible sponsors of a mecha anime (toy companies) as being too difficult to manufacture (possibly on purpose),[2] and that models of the Evangelions "would never sell."[3] Eventually, Sega agreed to license all toy and video game sales.

A sudden shift in tone occurred in the series around episode 16, partially due to scheduling restraints (drastically reducing the number of frames that could be drawn for each episode).[4] While Anno had promised early on that "every episode [would give]...something for the fans to drool over," he began either removing fan service or juxtaposing it with scenes of emotional trauma.[5] The problematic schedule and Gainax's reputation for delivering episode prints at the last minute also resulted in more experimental approaches, with several episodes reusing shots, using uncommonly long still frames, flashing frames of often rhetorical introspective (Japanese) text and the final two episodes changed from their original concept into a psychological analysis of the main characters.

The resulting 26-episode anime, animated by Tatsunoko Productions and Gainax, and co-produced by TV Tokyo and Nihon Ad Systems, was broadcast from October 4, 1995 to March 27, 1996 on TV Tokyo. It was critically and commercially successful and acclaimed for its innovative imagery, concepts, and refreshing take on the mecha genre and anime as a whole (though not without controversy, as reception of the latter quarter of the TV series was sometimes hostile to the point of death threats). It was later aired across Japan by the anime satellite television network, Animax. The series won the Animage Anime Grand Prix prize in 1995 and 1996.
  1. ^ pg 167 of Takeda 2002
  2. ^ "At the planning stage, director Hideaki Anno is reported to have said, "With recent robot anime series there have been too many instances of toy makers sticking their big noses in from the design stage so they can get a spec that is easy to turn into a toy. I don't want any interference from toy makers, so I'm going to design a robot that just cannot be turned into a toy." pg 97 of Fujie 2004
  3. ^ Takeda continues: "He said the legs were too skinny, and then proceeded to give Otsuki a lecture on the principles of robot design. Otsuki is bitter about the incident to this day." pg 166–167 of Takeda 2002
  4. ^ Gainax (1998-02-20). "A Story of Communication: The Kazuya Tsurumaki Interview". Red Cross Book. Retrieved 2006-08-15. 
  5. ^ Galbraith, Patrick W. (2009). The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider's Guide to the subsculture of Cool Japan. United States: Kodansha. pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-4-7700-3101-3. 

I'm going to leave here for pickings for now, rather than remove it entirely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


I've removed the blockquotes to tighten up the prose. Those removed include:

"There is no longer room for absolute originality in the field of anime, especially given that our generation was brought up on mass-produced anime. All stories and techniques inevitably bring with them a sense of déjà vu. The only avenue of expression left open to us is to produce a collage-like effect based on a sampling of existing works."[1]

"The people who make anime and the people who watch it always want the same things. The creators have been making the same story for about 10 years; the viewers seem to be satisfied and there's no sense of urgency. There's no future in that."[2]

Regardless, Anno seems to have hoped to reinvigorate the medium of anime—seen as lifeless and moribund in the early 1990s—and restore originality: to create a new anime. This desire is also the reason Anno cited for creating the Rebuild of Evangelion movies:

"Many different desires are motivating us to create the new "Evangelion" film… The desire to fight the continuing trend of stagnation in anime.

The desire to support the strength of heart that exists in the world…
Many times we wondered, "It's a title that's more than 10 years old. Why now?"
"Eva is too old", we felt.

However, over the past 12 years, there has been no anime newer than Eva.[3]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference devilman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Anno, as quoted in Wong 1996
  3. ^ From 17 February 2007 movie theater poster by Anno; translation from "Hideaki Anno Releases Statement About New Evangelion Movies: EVA creator posts message in theatres across Japan, hopes to lure new audiences to Evangelion films", 2007-02-20, Anime News Network.

I've removed them for now, but placed them here for review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


"One of the key themes in Aoki Uru had been "not running away." In the story, the main character is faced with the daunting task of saving the heroine … He ran away from something in the past, so he decides that this time he will stand his ground. The same theme was carried over into Evangelion, but I think it was something more than just transposing one show's theme onto another …"[1]

"The development of Evangelion gives me the feeling of a ‘Live’ concert. Whether it was the story or character development, I made them without theory. During the development, while listening to various opinions, and analyzing my own state of mind, I kept questioning myself. I got the concepts from this personal stocktaking [self-assessment]. At first I thought I would produce a simple work featuring robots.
But even when the main scene became a high school, it did not differ compared to other productions in the same style. At this point, I did not really think of creating a character with two faces, two identities: one shown at school, and the other inside the organization he belongs to [Nerv]. The impression of ‘Live’ concert that gives me the birth of Eva, was the team joining me in developing it, in the manner of an improvisation: someone plays the guitar and, in response, the drums and bass are added. The performance ended with the TV broadcasting ending. We only started working on the next script once the previous one was done.

It took longer than usual. When we finished a screenplay, we went back and checked it against the previous ones. When we said: ‘Ah, I thought so, that’s wrong there’, we made corrections to the storyboard. In fact, with the last episode approaching, we have not even been able to finish on time."[2]

  1. ^ pg 165 of Takeda 2002
  2. ^ June 1996 NewType (published 10 May)

I compressed them to make it less wordy and flow better. Anno's comments are best paraphrased in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Section removed[edit]

I've removed this section:

As much as Evangelion has been impacted by other works like Devilman,[1] the series itself has become a staple in Japanese fiction. The nature of the show made it a landmark work in the more psychological and sophisticated vein of anime that would be picked up by later works such as Revolutionary Girl Utena (1997) that, like Evangelion, center on an ambiguous world-changing event to come. Serial Experiments Lain is a later anime which dealt with many of the same themes as Evangelion,[2] and so is often thought to be influenced by Neon Genesis Evangelion, although the writer did not see any of Evangelion until he had finished the fourth episode of Lain,[3] and attributes the utility pole visual motif to independent invention and the screen captions to his borrowing from Jean-Luc Godard and Anno from Kon Ichikawa. The show His and Her Circumstances (1999), which was also directed by Hideaki Anno, shares techniques (the experimental 'ripping-apart' of the animation and use of real photographs) and portrayed psychological conflicts in much the same way (although the various cinematic devices can be traced back to works other than Eva, for instance the works of Osamu Tezuka.[4]).
  1. ^ "The overall design of Evangelion calls to mind Devilman by Go Nagai. In fact, the whole concept of the Evas, which are made from Adam, and harbor the souls of humans, can be considered borrowed from scenes from Devilman, where the soul of Akira Fudo is possessed by Amon, the Lord of War. Moreover, the heavily religious undertones, the suggestion of conflict with an indigenous people, and the cosmic view that mankind may not be the ultimate being all owe something to Devilman." pg 76 of Fujie 2004
  2. ^ "Neon Genesis Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain have much in common. They can readily be described as postmodern in terms of their concern with a notion of identity as fluctuating, their rapid and sometimes incoherent narrative pace, and their refusal of conventional forms of closure … More importantly, they share a complex and problematic attitude toward the real. The two stories also deal with issues that are perhaps culturally specific to Japan: the increasing distrust and alienation between the generations, the complicated role of childhood, and, most significantly, a privileging of the feminine, often in the form of the young girl or shōjo." "This contributes to a pervasive sense of the uncanny that imbues both narratives, linking them with the genres of horror and fantasy." pg 423–424 of Napier 2002
  3. ^ Nakajima, Shin-suke (1999). "HK: Interview with Chiaki Konaka". Retrieved 2006-09-16. 
  4. ^ "Neon Genesis's 14 year-old protagonist, Shinji Ikari, lives in Tokyo without contact with his family, and his mood is often illustrated by the use of shooting scenes from above, animation cels washed in drab blue, and passages of extreme action interspersed with reflective passages of stillness or close-ups of Ikari's face.
    (But, as Brophy explains, such innovation is by no means a first for Neon Genesis - in the late 1940s the Japanese cartoonist Osama Tezuka borrowed artistic techniques from German Expressionism in his four-volume cartoon version of Dostoyevsky's Crime And Punishment.)" The Age (Melbourne, Australia) January 14, 1999 Thursday Late Edition "Orient expressive". by David M. Walker GREEN GUIDE; Pg. 23

Because a lot of this is academic work pushed into a synth that only a look at the references allow for proper analysis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The anime meets WP:PTOPIC more than any of the other topics. In the last 30 days, the anime received more hits than the current main page/franchise page. The franchise page is also not the best. It is an overgrown disambiguation page that goes into details covered by other articles. This page set up will allow readers to find what they are really after first, which is the original anime. Discussion at WT:ANIME also mostly found this to be the proper outcome, rather than the merging that I had initially proposed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is the franchise article, not a simple list, further the suggested target was a merger source List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    Would "Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)" be better? Because your argument says nothing about whether or not the anime is or is not the primary topic. You only seem to oppose on semantic reasons.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) would work better than the current proposal. It was the name of that article in 2010. -- (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    Fair enough.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    Update concerning the changed proposal, I am now Neutral or weak oppose I prefer having franchise articles as the root article, as a personal preference. -- (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not the PTOPIC, with numerous related works all bearing the same name. This was already heavily discussed at A&M's talk pages. The manga has the same name, is notable, is different and given the numerous games, spin offs and new film series. Neon Genesis Evangelion should be a disamb if anything. Ryulong is misrepresenting the sides at the A&M page. Gwern, Izno, and A Certain White Cat were additional opposers, all backed with arguments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    None of the items you list have anywhere near the presence of the original anime or have slightly different titles than work as disambiguations. And now I am bringing this discussion to the greater view of the project rather than the "defunct" anime wikiproject talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    And "...mostly found this to be the proper outcome..." is wrong. We've been through this already. Considering the whole issue, I see this move request as disruptive. It was made in response to the GITS issue and the move request being filed right after the GITS page was recreated. We have discussed the base argument for months, and OID just explained the policies as it applies. Making a mirror case when NGE doesn't meet either of PTOPIC's criteria serves to show that your interpretation of that policy is the issue. Just like your opinion on the appearance of pages. Both are best discussed and worked out after you cool down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if I've given up hope on coming to a compromise over GITS because Only in death cut the gordian knot, but now I can suggest this in a completely nondisruptive manner. I'm not happy with that but there's nothing I can do about it for the time being. And the anime most certainly meets the criteria of PTOPIC. No one cares about the manga. No one cares about the video games. Everything else has a self-disambiguated title. More people visit the page on the anime than anything else. It is the primary topic. It is a disservice to our readers to give them a glorified disambiguation page presenting itself as a stand alone franchise article when they want to know more about the anime first and foremost.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem defunct to me, both WPANIME and WPEVA has activity this year, both have prompt responses to messages posted. (and ofcourse the media franchise associated with WPEVA is still under production, so would be more likely to have an active project) -- (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    The use of "defunct" is there because ChrisGualtieri and Gwern both categorized WP:ANIME as such when I first proposed this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    If you didn't understand the comments, ask, don't twist them into something they most clearly are not. A&M tries to overrule site-wide policies and touts invalid "rules" long after they are gone. The members who actively pursue these ends comprise the vocal side of the organization that is out of touch with even basic policies. I'm done playing, we will not agree, but thankfully over a dozen editors have expressed the root of A&M's problems and only the actions need to be done to rectify the situation. "More people visit" does not make a PTOPIC any more than your "first media" makes a PTOPIC at GITS. Let's look at some of the media:
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)
      • Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone (movie) (alternate retelling)
        • Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance (movie) (sequel)
        • Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo (movie) (sequel)
        • Evangelion Shin Gekijō-ban: ? (movie) (sequel)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) (alternate retelling)
      • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Campus Apocalypse (manga) (alternate universe)
      • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Comic Tribute (manga) (spinoff)
      • Neon Genesis Evangelion (live-action movie) (remake)
      • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days (manga) (alternate retelling, Spinoff of alternate universe in episode 26)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth (movie) (remix)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion (movie) (alternate ending)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Shinji Ikari Raising Project (manga)
      • Petit Eva - Evangelion@School (OAV)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: 1st Impression
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: 2nd Impression
    • Girlfriend of Steel
      • Girlfriend of Steel 2
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion 64
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion 2
    • Shinji Ikari Raising Project (game)
    • Secret of Evangelion
    • Detective Evangelion
    • Evangelion: Battle Orchestra
    • Evangelion MAGI Angel Attack
    • Evangelion New Theatrical Edition: Sound Impact
    Still missing several from this list, but you get the media aspect point and potential confusion on the relationships. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    How many of those are titled just "Neon Genesis Evangelion" without anything after it? The anime, the manga, the N64 game(?), and the production hell live action movie. The anime is clearly the most notable and most identifiable out of those 4 to warrant being the primary topic. No confusion will arise from getting rid of the franchise page that clearly no one wants to see as the main page and instituting the anime as the primary topic. Our readers come first and I do not see why you refuse to acknowledge that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    This is why the disamb was the better idea. I'm done debating this ad nauseam, the move was rejected in the previous "move discussion" which resulted in a pretty obvious "no consensus to move". For that lengthy discussion please read this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    That was not a rejection. There were clearly people there who thought it was a good idea just as much as there were people there who disagreed. That was also soured by my suggestion of merging. This requested move allows the wider Wikipedia community (those who only participate in requested moves) to state their opinion. Here I am only suggesting movement instead of merging.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The page on the anime is clearly the topic that the most people would want to view, so it should be at the primary title. Both the franchise and manga can be linked from the anime page with hatnotes at the top of the page, making them easy to reach for people who were looking for those pages. Calathan (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support When an anime gets to be so big placing it into a main article with branch off articles is the right way to go. See: Haruhi Suzumiya, Gundam, Sailor Moon for good examples on how this page can and should look like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    You do realize the error you make here? The those are all franchise articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    No. They're properly formatted anime and manga pages (well Haruhi and Sailor Moon are).—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    They're still franchise articles (well, the Gundam and Sailor Moon are, Haruhi is more like a merged together article), they cover multiple properties, -- (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah but there's no "Sailor Moon (anime)" or "Sailor Moon (manga)" pages. They're both covered as part of "Sailor Moon" other than episode lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    There are multiple SM articles covering different properties in the franchise, like PGSM, there's a separate anime/manga article covering the animanga in English. Though for SM itself, it is weird that there's an article that covers both manga and anime as one, and a second one for English. Instead there should be an anime article with English as part of it, and a manga article with English as part of it. It would be how non-Japanese properties are treated, instead of just the live action being a separate article (and why would it be a separate article? It's the least notable of the three manga/anime/live) There's sufficient notability to support separate articles, and the current division doesn't make sense by splitting English off instead of splitting anime/manga apart. -- (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Whenever someone attempts to create full pages outside of the "list of" types, they are quickly merged back to the singular page regardless of notability. Dragon Ball Z anyone? This is the critical flaw in A&M's operation and some of members fail to understand the value of such pages and actively enforce this unusual stance that "adaptations" do not need separate pages even if they are notable and can easily fill out an entire page with proper production and casting. The logic of separate pages results in disamb or franchise formats and that upsets some editors; where they make arguments about PTOPIC, like here, where it fails both criteria for PTOPIC. Our coverage of NGE materials is also terrible, but the current state as pushed is the reason why views suffer to relevant material. The manga and chapters have more than 40,000 combined views in the last 90 days, but only the list of chapters is off the franchise page. Even the Neon Genesis Evangelion (video game) has been viewed 5700 times despite NO links from the franchise page. Mere view counts do not dismiss the PTOPIC criteria in situations like this which a disamb or franchise page can resolve, and given the lack of connectivity its amazing the views are this high. The premise for PTOPIC is illogical and will further confuse readers who have no idea what NGE even is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Stop bringing up DBZ as an example. It is a unique case. Not the guiding light. The Sailor Moon manga and the Sailor Moon anime are notable. But they are not independently notable from each other. They cover the exact same content just in different media, and that's dealt with on the chapter and episode lists. However, Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon and the Sailor Moon musicals are expected to get their own articles because they are unique entities within Sailor Moon itself. The fact that the English adaptation has its own article is troubling and I was thinking of sending to AFD a while ago but that's a different story. Casting information belongs on character lists and not the main article. Production may deserve its own section but you will probably be hard pressed to find anything about it. But now back to Evangelion. The anime is the main topic FFS. It is the most visited out of any of the pages and the only reason the franchise page gets any visits is because it is unrightly the primary topic. This "franchise" article should just be a media section included in the article on the anime, but you refuse to agree to that (just as you did with Ghost in the Shell). Producing these franchise pages just ends up in the creation of new articles that do not reference any of the other works in the franchise when they are more related that work than they are to the others. There was never a section on the films on the Evangelion anime article despite the fact that the films are part of the TV series. Maybe in this case the manga deserves its own page but the franchise surely does not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think you made my point. The fact you even consider Sailor Moon (English adaptations) for deletion is problematic. The contents of that page are the only fragments of what should be on the full anime and manga pages. Release, production, and cast information. PTOPIC's examples are unrelated, and criterion 2 supports the application of WP:SS for broad-to-detailed articles with the widest scope to the specific scope. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Why the heck is there an article just on the English adaptation of the anime? It's pointless. It doesn't serve any purpose. Everything on it belongs on other existant pages and it does not facilitate the creation of separate articles for the manga and anime of Sailor Moon.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    So the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of animangaproj is at variance with the general practice of various media franchises outside of Japan... and WP:NOTPAPER. I have no problem if the notability of various properties are low, and we have a single article with split off lists, but for SM, the general notability of the anime and manga are high enough to support separate articles. The franchise article should serve as the entry point, or general overview, and fictional universe article, instead of being the be-all article for both the anime and the manga, with only summary style condensations of manga and anime, and separate subarticles for those. Then we could remerge the English translations article into the expected content articles. -- (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    We should stop arguing over Sailor Moon because it's not relevant here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    A&M cannot restrict notable topics simply because you do not feel the topic needs more than 1 main and two bad lists. Last time this route was taken you unilaterally merged and edit warred to keep the notable Ghost in the Shell manga combined with the long-standing franchise page. You've shown how your POV is in conflict with Wikipedia's content policies and your intention to swap the pages will lead to you AFDing or just outright redirecting of the franchise as "non-notable" with "NGE already covers the media" by combining the two articles. Also it be pushed by the few active A&M editors who try to enforce this localconsensus which decides that basic notability or layout policies do not apply. To reach this, you misquote and take the spirit of the policies out of their intended context to arrive at conclusions that are illogical and result in a reduction of content and coverage. Outside editors who know the subjects, even briefly, have pointed out that A&M is nearly useless because of this "localconsensus" that goes to extremes by not including information about the cast or basic production credits. Edits like this is why even if does not appear relevant, it is. Because your intentions results in pages like Fullmetal alchemist and that's why the interactions at Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z are relevant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Chris, you and this IP are the only people who have ever argued that all of these things should get their own pages because you use WP:N as the only metric for producing new pages. And I have never once misquoted policy. You are the one who constantly peppers your arguments with Wikipedia shortcuts, despite the fact that they often do not apply in that particular situation or the whole of the policy or guideline suggests something completely different than what you're saying should be done. Casting information belongs on character pages. This is common on all topics where there is a cast. Production credits have their place in the infobox. How puffery goes into a production paragraph or section? And stop bringing up other pages. They are not relevant here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is because N and GNG are the metric for stand alone articles and Wikipedia's community is clear about that. The rest would follow WP:CASTLIST or WP:TVMOS. This is an encyclopedia, and is not limited to plot and release only. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    When works of fiction are so intertwined then it's difficult to produce separate articles for such similar subjects and then you fall into WP:REDUNDANTFORK territory. WP:MOSTV seems to suggest that production crew are listed in the infobox and they suggest cast information be treated on a case by case basis. The fact that we discuss print and visual media means character lists are the better option for cast information. Also, WP:CASTLIST is for films. Again, this is you picking shortcuts to suit your needs because one aspect fits what you're talking about when the whole does not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    You only fall into REDUNDANTFORK if all your content is a PLOTdump production and reception information would not be redundant, and would be what makes it notable instead of being a plotdump. Instead such information should be on the franchise article. -- (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have never said that all should get articles, I only said that Sailor Moon's manga and anime should get articles. I never said anything about Ghost in the Shell or DragonBall. I even said that other animanga properties should show sufficient notability to get separate articles apart from franchise articles, and that if they did not, the franchise articles would be enough. (clearly the Haruhi manga(s) would not be sufficient to sustain an article) -- (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let's forget about Sailor Moon or GitS which have their own discussion. There are two matter here is to determine whether the NGE TV anime is the primary topic of "NGE". We offered as evidence a higher pageview number for the TV Anime than any other medium in the so-called "franchise", and long-lasting significance and usage in RS for the TV anime. It is clear that for the world at large, NGE primarily means the TV anime. Now what does the opposite side offer as evidence to the contrary (and I'm talking about verifiable evidence, such as usage in RS, not a mere personal POV) ? And how exactly would readers be "confused" ? The franchise page would still exist, would be linked to in the lead of the TV anime article (which would mention an overview of the various derivative and less important media bearing the NGE name). As it is, the franchise page already forced the majority of readers interested in the TV Anime to click on one more link before reaching the relevant info. What EXACTLY would be the problem in changing the order around to the TV Anime first ? What EXACTLY is "confusing" in the current NGE (Anime) lead ? We need these questions to be answered so that we can finally distinguish between silly OWNership/personal conflicts and actual layout efficiency.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a franchise article as the top article. Also, Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) / Evangelion (franchise) is not a problem either. So it's really a wash as to which article, the TV anime series or the franchise, is better placed at NGE. Considering all the merchandising this franchise puts out, you can easily point to this or that as showing the franchise being the primary, or interpreting it differently having the same sources show the TV anime as primary. We could also determine that NGE/Eva is the primary topic of "Evangelion" which would displace the disambiguation page to Evangelion (disambiguation), and then either the TV anime or the franchise would be the PT for "Evangelion", or split primaries between the two (TV at NGE, franchise at Eva) My personal preference as I stated before, is for franchise articles, in the general case, to be the initial landing point. In this particular case, I also prefer to have the franchise article as the initial landing point. -- (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the franchise being the top article is because it is clear from page views that people want to get to the anime before they want to even bother reading about anything else concerning Evangelion. The anime is what created the franchise in the first place because nearly all of the merchandise has been for the anime, except in recent years where the Rebuild film tetralogy is making a name for itself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Most merchandise (as in different items) is not clearly from the TV anime, many of it is from variations on the theme and clearly not from the TV anime, like the personifications of the Angels, or even based on other merchandising properties (like merchandise based on the video games that clearly do not fit the TV timeline) So, I think most merchandising is not based on the anime, but alternate universes from it. (like the alternate Evangelion mechas) -- (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
But do you realize how trivial those things are to the whole of Evangelion? Most of the content regards the anime. Most people think of the anime before anything else. The anime gets just as many if not more hits than the franchise page, showing people go from the franchise page to the anime page 99% of the time. We are providing a disservice to our readers by saying that the franchise that the anime created is more important than the anime.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm torn. The numbers of the anime and the franchise are similar. Also, the anime article has better quality than the so-called parent article. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think the only reason the franchise page has anywhere near as many hits as the anime one is because people typing "Neon Genesis Evangelion" go to it first. The sheer number of people who go to the anime page shows it should be primary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I would Support a schema where Neon Genesis Evangelion is serving as a disambiguation page linking to the moves, anime, manga, games, franchise etc. The reader may be seeking information on any one of those topics and such a disambiguation page would serve as a navigation aid. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 02:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's how things are basically set up here but it's not an exact disambiguation page. It's one masquerading as a standalone article and that set up is not working at all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Note that Evangelion is already a disambiguation page and that's fine because that covers every media that has "Evangelion" in its name. Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Vast majority of those have Neon Genesis in their name. I do not see the difference it makes in my argument. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is pointless to produce a disambiguation page for a topic where all the similarly titled items are inherently related.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    You do not see the problem in having 2 disambiguations in a row ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, Evangelion is already a disambiguation page for all the media having "Evangelion" in their title; however Neon Genesis Evangelion only refers to a handful of works, and of these, the TV Anime is the 1st created, the most referred to in RS, and has the page with the highest traffic (more than 10 times that of the others). We can't have 2 disambig pages in a row, so making the TV anime as the primary topic instead of the "franchise" page, per WP:PTOPIC, is merely the most common-sense and reader-friendly choice. The lead for the TV anime can easily link to the (franchise), (manga) etc pages.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but it is not the first created, you won't have 2 disamb pages in a row and PTOPIC has two criterions of which you are skipping to arrive at the determination on views. The first is debatable because poor connectivity, but the whole is greater than the anime page and NGE has demonstrated to have higher periods of the Rebuild movies than the anime and the anime has been shown to have higher views than the franchise itself. Criteria 1 is shaky here, but criteria 2 is where its pretty clear. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." The long-term enduring significance is NOT the anime, but the media whole which bears multiple same name and prefixed materials. Secondly the examples, like Gdańsk/Danzig or Einstein are unrelated topics, all Neon Genesis Evangelion media is related. It makes little sense to go to a in-depth article when WP:SS says otherwise as well. Remember, it is best to serve the uninformed readers a proper overview than have a knowledgeable fan take one extra click of the hatnote to arrive at the anime. The potential to mislead or omit important topic information outweighs the convenience; especially when many redirect links like Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV) get nearly 10,000 viewers where they want without pause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    The Rebuild movies are not known as "Neon Genesis Evangelion" and they are just adaptations of the anime anyway. Both the usage and long-term significance criteria are satisfied for Evangelion the anime being the primary topic. Everything you constantly list as also having similar titles or whatnot are just adaptations of the first and would not be primary topics. WP:SS does only governs article content within articles. It does not govern what article goes where. You are doing it again. You are picking out policies that you think support your argument but actually have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. And readers do not want to know about the manga or the video games or the soundtracks when they first navigate to "Neon Genesis Evangelion". The fact that the anime page gets just as many if not more hits than the franchise page shows it's what the readers are actually after.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    This may sound rude, but you do not know what you are talking about with Rebuild. It is not "an adaptation" and saying so does not make it true. For the uninformed, the topic-level article is the most educational because it doesn't assume anything and it covers the entire topic rather than what you judge to be "primary" and if your version results in tens of thousands of readers becoming confused about the content within NGE. Hatnote to the anime is perfectly fine, your proposal goes against those policies. You are dodging the issue of DISAMB's broad concept outlines which the Nokia Lumia example is closest to NGE and shows that a topic page is preferred. You want to shuffle and do a lot of things which when picked apart to their individual moves go against the policies, like how you advance a view count only PTOPIC. Your assumption that no one wants the manga is also incorrect tens of thousands of people care and get to the manga page despite only a "list of chapters" being present. All around, show me a policy backs YOUR changes because PTOPIC certainly isn't it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Who fucking cares if I'm right or wrong about the content of the films? Rebuild of Evangelion is a series of movies not titled "Neon Genesis Evangelion" in English or Japanese so they in no way affect whether or not our page titled "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is about the TV series or not. And Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) still exists so I don't know what list of chapters you are talking about. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC still backs up my argument that the article on the anime should be "Neon Genesis Evangelion" no matter how much you nitpick at my lack of knowledge about the content of related works.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    TV anime is the first created (the original concept and the first that went into production), if NGE becomes disambig there will be 2 disambig pages in a row. Page views clearly indicates a predominance of TV anime over all other media (and franchise page views are unreliable just because that's the first page readers get when typing NGE, even when they meant the TV anime). Long-term significance (and most references in RS) goes to the TV anime, if you wanna contradict that please provide a link which can verify it (you seem to mistake "long-term significance" for "last media to date", but PTOPIC clearly says this is a notability consideration). And I don't see how a hatnote or a paragraph in the lead couldn't give a proper overview.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Make whatever shaky argument you want, but PTOPIC is for unrelated terms through and through. DABCONCEPT backs a topic overview because all works bearing the name, prefixed or similar are directly related. How many times do I have to point that out? Forget anything else about PTOPIC, is application is not intended nor suitable for what you describe. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    You are misreading WP:DABCONCEPT. It clearly states "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept [...]". Primary meaning of "NGE" is not a "broad concept" but a single, particular TV show (at least that's my opinion, based on evidence that you failed to disprove). WP:PTOPIC does not mention "unrelated terms through and through" anywhere. If your opposition is based on an erroneous reading of policy pages, I advise you to reconsider your stance here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    How about reading the rest of it and stopping at what you feel is a "broad concept"? The unqualified article should be the broad concept (replace with topic level) because the non-specific to anime, manga, game or related works are all related. While one may be popular because of its core, the directly related media still accounts for more views than the anime. With spinoffs and spinoffs of those spinoffs, we have a franchise. The franchise is a broad article which should contain all the information of its body of works; something which Ryulong disagrees with, even going so far as to repeatedly claim that such franchises are non-notable in apparent disregard of what the page even is and means. PTOPIC is "primary topic" which for DABCONCEPT is the franchise. If you want to argue just PTOPIC without the rest of SS or DISAMB, than you still have problems because the examples of PTOPIC are all unrelated pages which they move to resolve. If you read the entirety of DABCONCEPT you would see that "broad concept" also means "type of thing". In practice, when things have multiple different works of the same name, we disamb or make a concept article. If you cannot address the core issue, than this is pointless and it will have to go to mediation with the GITS issue because it is the same issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    When people talk about Evangelion they do not mean the god damn manga or video games before they mean the anime. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? And stop picking god damn policy pages out of nowhere to support some new argument of yours.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    If you drop this deletion issue of the franchise, than I'll agree to move ONLY if you put the franchise as the hatnote and allow for a sub-section on the directly related and spinoffs until the core dispute is resolved, but you must agree to binding mediation on the subject and whatever subjects come up as a result. Otherwise I will promptly contest and restore the original format on the grounds that the agreement was broken. This is my compromise for this page and this page only. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Where the hell do you see the word "delete" in any of my comments here? Where have you seen me disagree to any page formatting? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not making any agreements with you. This move request will go forward like all move requests.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Your intentions from the A&M Wikiproject discussion involved removing the franchise page and the consensus formed 6 years ago as indicated by Gwern have been completely fine. Numerous editors chimed in that are not as highly active, like Gwern, and cannot get bogged down in wikidrama. Anyways, if you won't compromise then the no consensus to move from the A&M discussion will be mirrored here, the policy clarification needs to go through and the resulting no consensus is to fix rather than delete. I think I was being generous with that compromise, but it was your decision and the last 5 months has shown this conflict, no matter where you decide to bring it up, is still all about one core issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ryulong, I can understand the frustration you might feel, however if you want the proposition to succeed, you need to gather as large a consensus as possible, so I urge you to respond to Chris' offer at compromise with due civility. As for Chris' offer, if I understand it well, it involves retaining the franchise page (I've always agreed to that), linking to the franchise page in a hatnote, and I'm fine with that. As for the "sub-section on the directly related and spinoffs" (I suppose that's meant to go in the TV anime article ?), no problem as long as there's no redundancy. Chris, I suggest that you ignore Ryulong's last comment and keep the collaborative mindset you adopted...if it helps, maybe you 2 shouldn't interact too directly and go through me instead.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Chris, I have said from the outset that this is a modification of my original proposal. Note how I am not looking to delete anything. I have only proposed switching around pages. I still don't think the franchise page is necessary, but I'm not focusing on that in this discussion. You are the only one causing the drama here now. And Folken, this discussion is forming a consensus and I don't need Chris's approval because he does not realize that I changed my main proposal from the WT:ANIME discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    The only thing that matters to me is that the silly conflict between you two doesn't prevent articles from moving along. No one said you needed his approval, but on WP, discussions are there to reach as wide a consensus as possible, and outright rejecting such a compromise, just because you don't feel like it today, is anything but constructive. What does it really matter to you if he didn't get your proposal at first, as long as in the end, we can solve the issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yeah, I'm not following all this drama here, but the moves are a sound idea. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


The decision will impact hundreds of thousands of views, and will further detour the tens of thousands of readers who want the related content, some of which are the same exact name. No matter the arguments, please consider this as not a case of WP:TWODABS and perhaps look into making one a set index. Also the mere popularity of the work is not the sole criteria of PTOPIC, and PTOPIC's examples are unrelated items with no connectivity other than naming, but the whole view count shows that the subpages are more popular than the anime itself - even tens of thousands of views is suitable reason to not move. The situation before was resolved by a hatnote to the anime; yet the same does not work well in reverse. It would take 3 jumps to get to the manga and 3 jumps to the video game. Right now the worst is a mere 2 hops to the anime from a prominent link at the top. If this move is done, views on the related pages will drop and Google's search results lead right to the anime as the second link. It is not difficult to reach the page and its views sometimes surpass the franchise because of proper linking and incoming traffic that makes it easy for readers. Please consider all options, because popularity is only one aspect of the argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather help the hundreds of thousands of readers who want to know about the anime when they type "Neon Genesis Evangelion" than the hundreds who may want to know about the franchise. Again, the only reason the franchise page gets as many views as it does is because of this unnecessary confusion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you pointed out earlier that "even Neon Genesis Evangelion (video game) has been viewed 5700 times despite NO links from the franchise page", no view will drop whatsoever, so why all the drama ? The TV anime itself can easily link to the franchise and all major aspects like the manga, almost nothing is changed, except the first page readers reach, which becomes the one they're statistically more interested in.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The "list of chapters" page dropped to 0 views when it became a sub-section of the manga despite being listed in the manga page. This is simple cause and effect, readers will find the information that they want to provided the search time is reasonable. Given that the pages are not really developed right now, the status quo may not seem pressing, but inconveniencing a minority over a hatnote for a majority doesn't sound fair. Why should someone have to dig to find their target? Yes I could search for Star Trek: The Next Generation if I want that TV series, but I could also search for Deep Space Nine and get to where I want to go over the topic overview, in cases of ambiguous terms that are not 2-way is to go with a full disamb or a broad concept/topic overview. Anyways, I've said my peace and I have other things to take care of now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe people don't care about the list of chapters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


I think ‎ is vandalizing this article removing large sections with no reason why. I'm not sure how to undo all the edits he is doing can someone please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeBK (talkcontribs) 17:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No, these changes are extremely beneficial and I can confirm these sources as I have just recently obtained Zettai, Understanding Anime and Manga and such. I do not have the Super/Heroes or Seeking the Self, but the information is not incorrect. Eng is a major researcher and an RS, no concerns there. I haven't gotten my hands on "the Notenki memoirs", but I have no doubts again because Cavallaro agrees. Some of the changes are removing the quotes from the refs, not exactly a problem, but not exactly beneficial if you do not have the source. Some of the changes are more in line with FA work and we should be gracious and express our thanks for a knowledgeable expert taking the time to do some good fixes. This editor knows the material and is well connected because some of these sources are things I've requested for weeks through my ILL system and only recently obtained. It is no small feat to get all these books either... but I would be glad to explain and address any concerns with the sources because I have them on hand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The only thing he's removing are the quotations from the references.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am ‎ (not logged in). I remove the quotations from the references because I think they are unnecessary. I apologize if the grammar is not correct (I'm Italian). Fortunately, even though I'm in Italy, I found books on the subject "Evangelion" (thank you, Ebay!). Also, I translate from [2] and so there may be errors of translation (I don't speak English).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't be translating from another project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It is allowed and it is acceptable. We even have templates which tell users that pages can be expanded with foreign language texts. Not sure why you think otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why content from the Italian Wikipedia would be beneficial here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The content which I have translated, is largely "created" by myself, in true. So I think it's pretty much the same thing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It is fine. I wouldn't be bothered by his disagreement. English Wikipedia actually encourages what you do because it results in better coverage internationally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I just don't see how an Italian perspective of a Japanese topic is relevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do not think you understand Wikipedia or the added content. It is not an "Italian perspective" and even if we had a section for the Italian response that would be completely acceptable and wanted. I've done all the international releases I can find for some works because America or English or whatever region you attribute your worldview is not always the best or balanced. More perspectives = better article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how content at the Italian Wikipedia is useful for an article on a Japanese subject at the English Wikipedia. What is there that isn't here? All that's been going on with TeenAngels1234's edits is deletion after deletion and removal of extensive citation content. Nothing new has been added.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
"Nothing new has been added"? If so, I would have no reason to change the page. I added material on the cultural impact of the anime that was not in any wiki, in true (in this wiki and the Even the simple arrangement of notes is useful (I think).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and they're not vandalism. I agree with the removal of quotes from references, as long as they get worked into the article prose and their content is not lost. Any additional content is welcome, whatever its origin, as long as it is reliably sourced. However, I note that TeenAngels1234 has actually removed valid and valuable content and replaced it with his own in Neon_Genesis_Evangelion#Influence_and_legacy, this should not have happened, and any new content, while welcome, should only be an addition to the whole.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, what's the problem and I hope you are not going on about the same thing Ryulong is. I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about so either back it up with diffs or drop it. Next comment like this and I'm dragging this to DRN.[3] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't need a DRN to read my comment properly and look at the article's history, as I did. If you don't have time, then hold your answer until you have it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It does not work that way and I don't have time to play games and guess what the problem could be as the last one predates NGE and could not possibly be a source for its themes and works. Now, please either state the problem or drop it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
FolkendeFanel, I have deleted the text of the section because ( I think) it does not explain well the cultural impact of the series (and many times the sources were inaccurate). I preferred to replace the inaccuracies that I found, but if you need to, you could add it back.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not questioning all of your additions (on the contrary they seem very good) and the previous version was far from perfect, but there are few sourced sentences that I feel deserved to stay, though I haven't thought about how they could be incorporated in the flow of your edits. Also, let's not forget about the quotes, most of which would be very useful for the "Influence and legacy" section. @ChrisGualtieri, let me sort that out with TeenAngels1234 directly, that will spare us pointless drama. I wasn't even addressing you to begin with.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm I don't have the unofficial guide to NGE, but while I am aware of Anno's comments, they are probably more indicative of the mental state at the time and less likely to be really relevant or neutral here. Given the vandalism and the death threats sent by fans, such comments were understandable, but the perspective is somewhat lacking without proper context to the comments. While that may be borderline OR to add on Wikipedia, historical context is something which should be mentioned to give a fuller view of the picture. Overall, I think it was a good change. Though I don't exactly know why the need for the templates all the time, I normally use the rp template for the pages instead of the minimalist or redundant citations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, if fan backlash is relevant, Anno's reaction to it also certainly is, especially if it was reported by secondary sources. As for neutrality, sources and quoted comments can be as non-neutral and POV-ladden as they want, what matters is that WP equally represents all the POVs on a question. If Anno's reaction to fan backlash changed with time, then WP should also report it. If he didn't change his mind, then it's not up to WP to rationalize or excuse his behavior, "contextualizing" in this way would indeed be OR, unless it is taken from secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • And as an expert on the matter, I agree with the changes made because putting it into context will be billed as "Synth/OR" by you. For the purposes of this article the issue is rather COATRACK and it is only something that should be discussed in RELIABLE sources. That book is godawful to begin with, filled with dozens of inaccuracies and more. I'm sure other experts and editors would identify it as such. Let me give you some friendly advice Folken: when someone claiming to be an expert or knowledgeable about a particular topic knows about the topic in deep detail, consider there input and their reasoning. I should never have allowed that stupid line to be used at all (before I GANed) and quite frankly, you have demonstrated very little knowledge of the subject and a hostile POV. Folken, the policy for neutrality is WP:NPOV, please read it and the out of context usage is unacceptable and from an unreliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
        • You're the only one being needlessly hostile here. I've been on Wikipedia for seven years so I know my policies perfectly, thank you. WP:NPOV states that "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution". I therefore see nothing violating WP:NPOV here as everything is properly attributed. If you raise an issue of reliability, then the same statements can be found in Protoculture Addicts and sourced from there, it even offers some sort of counterview. WP:COATRACK is just an essay, and is just so irrelevant here that I think you might have misread it. Finally, you can proclaim yourself an "expert" (whatever that means) if it pleases you, but know that it doesn't give you the last word in editorial discussions, and that this kind of behavior is nonconstructive and generally frowned upon.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And I have removed it. I disagree about your stance of experts and Jimbo gave a nice touch to it. We add "nuance" and this is definitely something that you need to understand the context before you go about throwing a fit. First of all, the editorial is an opinion piece. The first three lines show the knowledge of the editor. The entire second paragraph is paraphrasing and fairly correct interpretations of Anno's comments, but just like the M-Kun incident required context, this does as well. The otaku comments require the recent events and the editorial is "i asked a friend to translate and I am outraged, but I lack the full grasp of the situation". Take it to DRN or RSN; but we are not going to omit the history just because you found a poor excuse to reinsert some venting of a director during an emotional breakdown. If I go into further details I'd violate BLP; but quite simply - do the full thing in context or not at all. His comments are not even relevant to this article, and I am deeply concerned about this for the FA level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Context is perfectly sufficient, you're just grasping at straws. The interview itself refers to "some very scathing criticisms on the Internet" (but this is a fan's translation of a fan's translation, so we can't use it), and PA mentions "the internet fans who excessively criticized the show". What other context is there to talk about ? Attributing any other motivation to Anno's comment, if not explicitely mentioned in a RS, would be OR by synthesis, as you correctly guessed. I properly contextualized my edit by referring to "internet fans" and placing it right after mentions of the series' ending controversy, which makes me think that, as usual, you haven't even bothered to read my edit before edit-warring and throwing your pointless fit. I can always tweak it to make it clearer, but you provide no reasoning grounded in policy whatsoever.
We can certainly develop a more thorough coverage on the controversy as a whole (and PA#41 seems a good source to start that), but as far as the quote is concerned, it's verifiable and properly attributed, presented impartially (we do not portray Anno in any positive/negative way with the quote, we just accurately and neutrally describe both sides of the dispute as per WP:NPOV) and sufficiently contextualized as far as available RS allow it without entering the realm of OR by synthesis, and as the statement was first made in a prominent secondary source, and then reported and discussed in an another one about the controversy, it sure is relevant in a paragraph about the controversy and it will stay, period.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
But he not talking about the fan criticism of the work itself. Why are you attributing it to that? His response was to the "Anno is dead" and such comments. That is like toilet graffiti. He said that if you were next to him and did that, he'd likely hit you, but over the internet they are in a safe place. His response to them not it was basically "大変". Do not make things up. You know nothing of Anno's past and you seem to be deliberately taking unreliable and questionable tertiary sources to construe a point that was not in the interview itself. And secondly, these quotes you attribute are invalid because this is someone the editor asked to translate and then paraphrased rather roughly, this line is telling, "I was particularly confused when my friend Miyako read me Hideaki Anno’s interview in NEWTYPE of June." - Note, read me, this was not a translation of the editor and editorials are opinion pieces by nature, but this is equivalent of playing telephone here. Please get the actual source because this is of a very different context then what was stated in the interview. While Anno criticized them of being "obtuse" or "locked in there rooms", but he definitely uses the term "Data" and arrives that "Data without analysis ends up at demagogy." Don't take my quotes as a translation, I'm paraphrasing just like the Protoculture Addicts' editor did. The entire section about the "Anno is dead" is being confused with his response to criticism here and they are completely different - it is a violation of a bunch of policies including BLP to say something he did not explicitly attribute to their criticisms and frankly, given the death threats and the breakdown, this may not even be representative and is trying to defend a negative and inaccurate assertion. You know policy and should not reinsert it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've taken this to WP:BLPN after Folken's latest reinsertion of a BLP violation with misleading and false edit summary.[4]. The section is "Neon Genesis Evangelion and Anno". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
First, I want thorough apologies for the gratuitous personal attacks and bad faith assumptions you've just wrote against me. I don't "know nothing about of Anno's past" and I don't "deliberately take unreliable and questionable tertiary sources to construe a point that was not in the interview itself". If you are unable to refrain from trying to deride in some way or another those who disagree with you, I will take this to WP:ANI to make you stop. Consider yourself warned.
Second, you're referring to the English fan translation of the French fan translation lying around on the net and on Gwern's site. That's not reliable. The one reliable source we have paraphrasing the content is Protoculture Addicts so that's what we're going for (and yes, Claude J. Pelletier and Protoculture Addicts are fucking reliable). But even when using the English fan translation, the itw still refers to "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected [...] on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms" and that's what Anno is responding to. PA mentions "They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet." They attack other while they are staying in a safe place." so I can add something like "gratuitous attacks" (which certainly corresponds to death rumors) to "excessive criticism" because Anno definitely responds to both even in the fan translation, but anything more would be unreliable, and anything less would be inaccurate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Take it to BLPN. The line was, "For example, someone mentions my name, saying, "Anno is dead". If that person were next to me, perhaps I might hit them. On the message boards someone can still make a rebuttal, but this remains at the standard of toilet graffiti." That is completely different from what you say. The Animag is the one I'd accept. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
And Protoculture Addicts wrote: "I think the people who are very much involved with the Net," Mr. Anno said, "have very narrow views toward life and the world. They're always in their rooms and don't go out very often to communicate in person. Because of their information on the Net, they feel they know everything without searching the real truths." They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet."
how the fuck is that different ? Anno merely blames general anonymous internet behavior, which includes saying "Anno is dead" (summarized as "gratuitous attacks") and excessive criticism ("The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected [...] on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms" ).Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Remain civil and take it to BLPN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    I am civil, you're the only one who has personally attacked me and I'm still waiting for your apologies. BLPN is irrevelant when the only issue is your misreading of the interview.
    There is no difference with saying: in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared their messages to "graffiti in a public toilet". Anno concluded on the remark that "they don't have anything certain to hold on... that's probably why they watch anime shows" and advised them to "go out and visit towns". Once again, you fail to read correctly: I'm not saying Anno assimilates just any criticism with toilet wall graffiti, but the specific, excessive criticism that turned into gratuitous attacks from anonymous internet fans. Why are you unable to understand that simple fact ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I made no personal attack. You are engaging in edit warring and it is proper to remove something contentious under BLP while discussion is ongoing. You have reverted 2 users and have gone and reinstated the dubious material three times when a faithful French translation exists. Gwern's English version is also very accurate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Quoting myself: "I want thorough apologies for the gratuitous personal attacks and bad faith assumptions you've just wrote against me. I don't "know nothing about of Anno's past" and I don't "deliberately take unreliable and questionable tertiary sources to construe a point that was not in the interview itself". If you are unable to refrain from trying to deride in some way or another those who disagree with you, I will take this to WP:ANI to make you stop. Consider yourself warned."
    You are the only one engaged in edit-warring, and I see nothing contentious as it is properly sourced and attributed. Stop saying nonsense: whatever you think of the French and English translations, they are WP:SELFPUBLISHED and therefore cannot be used. I can't believe that you, who earlier tried to lecture me on policies, are unable to understand such a simple thing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You are grasping at straws, here. Our 2 sources say exactly the same thing, either you have difficulty understanding the English of the sources, or you are deliberately choosing elements that go your way and ignoring all the other ones. I told you several time that even Gwern's translation opens with "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected [...] on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms" and you have never answered that. My edit does not say that Anno qualified criticism as toilet wall graffiti, it says that Anno qualified messages (in general) from anonymous fans who excessively criticized him and gratuitously attacked him as toilet wall graffiti. You clearly have an issue with reading and/or communication, and that's Talk:Themes_of_Neon_Genesis_Evangelion#POV_issue_in_"Religion" all over again. I don't care why you keep doing that, I just don't have time to go around in circles until you decide to have a more careful look at what you're dealing with, just like last time. I'll just post at the RS Noticeboard to clear the matter up with Protoculture Addicts once and for all so that you can't continue to make inaccurate claims about it, and then I'll be done.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The offending section stays out while it is under discussion at BLPN per WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPREMOVE. The source reliability and relevancy is challenged, considering the interpretation of the a third/fourth party reference and separate derived paraphrasing and the conjectural interpretation of it that is disputed by both the original source and its full translations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Your move is borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE as you have no consensus this is an urgent and valid BLP concern. You do not have knowledge of Japanese language to dispute anything, and the full translation is a self-published, unreliable source that cannot dispute a reliable source. But the full fan translation doesn't even dispute the PA editorial.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Again with the baseless accusations of what I know and do not know. The matter is simple; get the original source and read it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite my searching I cannot pull up that particular interview. It is one of the few interviews (out of dozens) that I cannot find. I doubt my academic paper from circa 2003 has that in its notes either... I picked to death the symbolism more than anything else in that paper and maybe have a link to an old website that could have it archived. All I know is that searching in Japanese is helpful, but unless anyone wants to shell out for a 2nd hand copy and pay international shipping I think I'm going to have to see about getting a contact or two to find it locally and grab it. Knowing where it is, down to the page count doesn't help, but I am confident in the French translation and Gwern's English translation of the French document. I'm not good at French, but thankfully G-san is. Haha. Maybe I can track down the original and say "here read it yourself", but this is difficult. Otherwise I think replacing it for Animage one will have to do... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we compromise and take the Animage one? I'll just throw that source up if you want; the interview was done one day before he departed for the United States. I've got about... 80 something interviews with the man, what is the obsession with "this" source by the way? Much less, why are we worrying so much about that particularly 1996 interview when it was loosely reported in PA 43? I have exhausted my personal library and I doubt Gwern has it otherwise he'd post it. Though to be really fair... the source I gave was 100% accurate and is verifiable - whether or not I currently possess the original is a moot point because you can go and find the source and verify it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's start at the beginning. Where is the problem with the wording of PA ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've updated my edit that way: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet". Anno concluded on the remark that some fans on message board "don't have anything certain to hold on" and advised them to "go out and visit towns"
Here's a break down of the edit:
"in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks" -> this will never change because that was what the interviewer asked Anno about and and it's also in Gwern's translation.
"controversial comments" because Claude J Pelletier says "I don't entirely agree with what Mr. Anno is saying. He seems to perpetuate the standard caricatural view of the nerd and introverted net surfer." This will never change.
"offensive and anonymous online messages": to make clear as what is graffiti in a public toilet. This corresponds to "Anno is dead" from Gwern's translation, and corresponds to <<They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet">> in PA. This will never change.
"some fans on message board "don't have anything certain to hold on" and advised them to "go out and visit towns"" This will never change as it corresponds to both PA and Gwern's translation. The edit makes it clear Anno wasn't commenting on just any criticism, but on online fans.
That's about all that can be done. I think every criticism of ChrisGualtieri has been addressed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Anno's comments can not be treated as a "reception." The section "reception" should contain the comments of critics, audience reactions .. not the answers to the criticisms of the director. Maybe you could put the text in the future, in an appropriate section. To be honest, I do not think even they are relevant.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, they are not relevant and the original source must be used because the editorial is incorrect. The source is Newtype Magazine June 1996, pages 10-16. I have dozens of interviews with Anno over the years and three from this same time period can be used without any interpretation. This insertion is a BLP violation and inaccurate, I've reported the edit warring. Misquoting and deliberately taking text out of context to arrive at some new conclusion is SYNTH, and when sources conflict you go with the best (the original in this case), but Folken does not want to. I'm sorry, but the source is the source and if you cannot find it doesn't mean it isn't verifiable and it does not act as a free pass to take the editorial and create a BLP issue. Folken's wording is actually worse than the original unaltered text which I was already hesitant about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We can always discuss about placement, but the insertion is accurate, not a BLP violation per the thread opened at BLPN, there is no misquoting, no new conclusion, no source conflict, and the source I'm using is reliable. I've done all I could to provide good faith tweaks to satisfy ChrisGualtieri's remarks, but I note Chris has not commented on the new edit I described above, and chose to report it instead, so I guess discussion is over.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to understand, here. My edit says "offensive and anonymous online messages" , not " fan criticism". My edits have never involved "fan criticism", but "excessive fan criticism", which isn't the same thing. I can't see how this would be inaccurate, but unfortunately ChrisGualtieri doesn't want to discuss my edit. This is getting out of hands.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick removed it and commented on it at RSN.[5][6] And I agree with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Then, using Newtype itself as a source, what kind of summary of Anno's statement regarding fans and message board would you agree on ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We are not using it. Plain and simple. Thank you and good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Newtype sure is a reliable source, and we have a translation that you have 100% certified accurate and verifiable for us. I see no reason not use it. So, how would you summarize it ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Given the conflict, unless I can provide a scan, I should not include it. Essentially, it would be the same as saying "is this OK?".[7] Now I like that interview, but I don't have a copy of Aerial Magazine to vet its accuracy. For others. Would you take "あんた、バカぁと、言われてみたい?" It is from Animage in July 1996 this was the interview one day before he departed for Anime Expo 96 and if you got the rest of PA you will see that the writer from PA (not the editorial) will cover it. I could put up some of the original Japanese, but giving the best words would be difficult. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, usually, PA's translator is Miyako Graham, the same "my friend Miyako" that is mentioned in the PA#41 editorial. What do we make of that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm done discussing that source in circles, now please stop bringing it back up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Other language casts[edit]

Shall I add the foreign language casts, including the French, Italian and a few other languages? We already know the cast details and it would help deal with some of the English bias to this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Anything outside of the original Japanese cast and the English dub cast(s) is trivia at best.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  1. I'll be doing a more complete copy edit and review shortly. Comments will be added below:
  • Please move all the citations out of the lead and into the body of the article.
This is not necessary and not required. Contentious claims should be sourced, even in the lead.
There are no contentious claims in the lead, so no need to source them. There is also content in the lead that is not discussed in the body. Per MOS all content in the lead should only summarize what's in the body; it shouldn't contain anything original. That's why the refs need to be moved out to the body - along with the insertion of the content they support.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is over-linking in the article. Per the MOS, only link a term on its first use in the lead, first use in the body, first use in the infobox and first use in an image caption.
 Done While not required, I fixed some of the linking issues. Not all represented a good removal, such as the cast list.
  • Mention early on, in the lead and in the body, how many episodes there were.
  • Is it "Second Impact" or "Impact"? If both are used but you're opting to use Impact for brevity, you'd want to put this alternative in parenthesis after the first use of "Second Impact".
  • In the intro, it is unclear whether or how the public is aware of Angels and GEHIRN's intentions behind the creation of the Evangelions, given they believe an asteroid was the cause of the Second Impact.
  • Characters section - "represent different things to different viewers" - could you reword this to remove the vague word "things"?
  • The first sentence of the Production section isn't clear. What is Aoki Uri? It was unclear how it related to the first sentence so I removed it, and then tried to find another way to express what I understood to be the general idea. Please revise this if I've changed the meaning to be incorrect.
I am not sure if it is necessary. It was a project that was never completed, but the idea of "not running away" was used for Shinji and other undisclosed themes. It was a sentence or two in most sources and is parroted, but never really expanded on in any of my sources.
  • Wikilink the correct anime for "Yamato" in the Production section
  • The Production section needs to be reorganized so that information is presented in chronological order and grouped together in a logical way. For example, all elements related to story should be clustered together.
This is chronological and grouped together. Could you expand on where the problem exists?
Para 2: It's a cluster of unrelated trivia. Is there a way to organize this so it has some logical flow? Para 4: Second half of paragraph from sentence beginning "Fearing censorship and not..." is unclear and needs rewording to make sense. All of para 5 needs to be rewritten for clarity and correct grammar.
 Done Headache inducing trying to fix that, but its done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There are numerous examples of incorrect or awkward grammar and vocabulary choices as well as misspellings throughout the text and citations - have a careful read through to make corrections, and request assistance from a native English speaking copy editor if necessary.
A non-native speaker did a major amount of work here. I'll reparse it through, but could you point out the problem section or text?
The examples just above illustrate the issue. I already fixed much of the organization and grammar issues in the article myself, but there were so many that it was taking far too long and I had to stop. Normally it's something the nominator or a copy editor should do, not the GA reviewer - and if a reviewer raises this as an across-the-board issue, it's not realistic to ask them to identify every example of the problem in the text. If the nominator isn't confident in their English fluency and their ability to identify systemic problems, they should have the article peer edited before submitting it for GA. I'd recommend more closely re-reading and editing the Anime articles you're working on before nominating them for GA to help the reviews go smoother (and to attract reviewers faster, since this unreadability is likely to put them off or get the article a quick fail). These articles attract a lot of editing from people who don't speak English as a first language, which makes the prose an area that will need your particularly close attention.
Again, much of the added issues were not mine. I'm going to do a through copy edit in a moment. I am a native English speaker, but unless I really sit down and read word-for-word aloud, my brain skips over the errors because I know the material. I haven't actually given it a proper copy editing in the first place now that I think about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Make sure incomplete sentences as image captions do not end in a period; only complete sentences should use end punctuation in image captions.
Not sure of where the problem is... or if there even is a problem with it.
I noted it as a problem in several places, most of which I fixed myself (but not all). Check the image captions for incomplete sentences with periods at the end and remove.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done - the last image of the race car has an incomplete sentence as a caption, and it ends in a period currently. I will make the change myself, this time, but keep an eye out for this in your other nominations.
  • Revise the first two sentences of the plot summary. The sentence beginnings are too similar and come across as redundant, and there are grammatical errors to fix. The expansion of the plot is good, although possibly overly detailed. What do you think? I also believe the average person who's never seen the series might be lost reading this - I'd recommend simplifying the description of the events with a focus on the outcome rather than the action. And would you please review the entire section for encyclopedic quality of word choice and grammar?
I reworked the first part, but the plot is really complex and I've already cut down a lot of the intrigue and limited the roles of the characters. I'm worried about losing context. Though I could do a bit more.
So is this done? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I am giving the whole thing a final copy edit now. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The grammar problems continue in all sections from "Themes" on down (which is where I stopped editing). Have a look and make fixes.
  • Move the reference to religion from Allusions into Themes. The Themes section should be expanded to at least summarize everything discussed in the larger separate article.
  • I would either rename "Allusions" to "Inspirations" or move the content into the production section in the discussion on how the project was developed. This could be done by first stating what the sources of inspiration were, then identifying examples of how these inspirations manifest in the series itself.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref needed for Evangelion 3.0
  • The film section needs some expansion. Treat it like a two or three paragraph summary of all those other main articles on the Evangelion films.
  • First para in Releases needs a ref
I pulled the cites from a website which shows and details the information - anything more specific and you'll get primary source citations which really do nothing unless you have them. After all what episodes are on what DVD seems a little bland for a citation... but if you insist this is possible.
When I say a reference is needed, it is any reliable reference you can find that sources the info. Is the website you used reliable? Then that's what you'd want to cite, because it's the source you used.
  • Be consistent in your use of italics for foreign language terms. Either always, never, or on the first appearance of the term only.
 Done - Works are italicized, but words like "otaku" are not. So this means that the sacred texts are italicized, even though they are Japanese. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Fix Miller shortened references to year 2012, not 2010
I hate this citation style... it is so confusing for me to check. But it looks fixed already... did you do it yourself? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't fix it, but someone else has now.
  • There is overlap between the Other Media, Merchandising, Film and Releases sections. Either find ways to keep the content distinct, or possibly re-combine the content in these sections differently
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This still needs work. I will give it a try.
  • The "Other Media" section needs references and expansion. I would dedicate a full paragraph to summarizing the key points about the manga (how many, how long, who, when, how much money it's made, key differences etc) and another about the video games with similar kinds of information. Saying the manga "ran for 18 years" is unclear - does this mean publishing house X reprinted for 18 years? Or the entire series took 18 years to print? Or...? The music deserves a whole paragraph, and possibly a separate section, especially since it was released in CD format. Finally a fourth para could discuss all the other bits - art books etc. Also review and strengthen the wording in this section.
I'll fix it, but I am worried about it being cut as "redundant". I've had precious little time as of late, but yes it took 18 years to finish... but it was not a steady release schedule.
It's not redundant if it's just a paragraph (~4 sentences) on each - the main articles are so much longer, so this is merely providing a paraphrased summary of the content found on the main article.
I made some changes myself. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The Characters section should be expanded. Describe each of the characters here - their role, motivations, personality and appearance - including the regular ones and recurring ones. Good examples are found in the GA articles for The Legend of Korra and The Powerpuff Girls.
Didn't go overboard here and took from the voice actors and Anno.
These edits don't fix the issue. Think about this from the perspective of a person who has never seen Evangelion. They don't have any concept of what these characters look like, their personalities, their motivations, anything. A couple of sentences for the main characters at least and at least a few adjectives for the main recurring characters is what's needed here. The content currently in this section could almost work better in a discussion of the design of the series.
Did more work. Is this better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
These are very good additions.
  • Expand the "mini-lead" paragraph under the Other Media heading to briefly touch on the different subsections to be discussed below. No need to add many details or any references here.
  • Put all dates in the same order - either day month year, or month day year. Also make sure the month is spelled out in all instances (including the citations) for consistency with the text.
  • Add something more about who Misato is when she is first mentioned in the characters section.
  • The lead also needs to be expanded to 3 or 4 good-sized (5-7 sentence) paragraphs. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - this article is well on its way and would be very close to GA if the above recommendations are followed. I am going to stop reviewing this now, because the problems a copy edit will solve are distracting me from the larger issues related to content. Please let me know if you are able to make these changes within the next seven days, and I will come back and complete the review. Otherwise I will fail the GA and encourage you to renominate it once the above issues have been addresses. I really want to see this pass, so I hope you'll move ahead with this. Best, Lemurbaby (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll fix them. The character section goes against the "MOSAM", a contentious issue in the project. I will do your changes, but I have a feeling that editors will be quick to edit war into failing this article because a character page exists. I agree that the article page should cover the key characters and do so briefly. It is important to cover the information in one topic and not piecemeal them out, if the reader cannot get what they need on one article, they should not go to another and hop back to continue reading with proper context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the MOSAM? How does the section go against this? Does it go against it as it is currently, or as I'm asking you to change it to become?

Comment (from an editor of the article) Related to the "broad coverage" aspect, there is a potential issue with Themes of Neon Genesis Evangelion, where a lot of critical/academic analysis has been moved, which in my opinion deprives the main article of important coverage and prevents it to be "broad" enough to meet the GA criteria. I think a merge back to NGE would be appropriate, and that will probably be the source of a dispute which won't make the article stable enough. I acknowledge the article is definitely on the right track for GA, but per this issue (and others), this is definitely WP:TOOSOON.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read what you are linking to. And frankly, the non-English speaker did a massive amount of bad grammar and wording issues that I now have to redo, but your merging does little to actually improve the coverage of this page. Especially since a large amount of content covers the movies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate place to discuss the page or whether we merge it or not. I just wanted to notify the reviewer that this issue will arise soon.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not coming up soon. You have caused more than enough stress and I ask you not to disrupt this GAN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack, Folken. However, Chris, if the page is subject to a merge dispute, that would be a legitimate cause to hold the GAN until it was resolved, and you can't try to obstruct that discussion just because you want a GA pass. --erachima talk 21:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for voicing your concerns, Folken and Erachima. I don't agree that the content in the Themes article should be moved back into this one. It's very long and would overbalance the rest of the article. Numerous other articles have followed the convention of creating separate articles for overly long sections in the interest of keeping the main article readable and balanced. What I'd want to see is that the themes section here be well organized and well written, and that it comprehensively summarize the content of the separate article. That would enable it to meet GA criteria. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Had little time, put some notes up, I'll need to copy edit it tomorrow during lunch. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Did some copyediting. I'll do more, but I've really been pressed on time. Is it helping clear up the confusion? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Any input. I did some more work on the character section... but I'm having some difficulty in understanding what you are looking for here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've done more copyediting... @Lemurbaby: are you still here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I'm here - WP didn't let me know changes had been made, even though I have this on my list of pages followed. I will come back to you over the weekend. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I struck the issues that have been addressed. There are a few that are still outstanding and a couple of new ones, but we're almost there. I am still copy editing the later half of the article and hope to have that done by the end of today. If you can fix the points above, we should be through with this review soon. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Expand the "mini-lead" paragraph under the Other Media heading to briefly touch on the different subsections to be discussed below. No need to add many details or any references here.
 Done Removed it because the section is not of sufficient size to warrant a mini lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Put all dates in the same order - either day month year, or month day year. Also make sure the month is spelled out in all instances (including the citations) for consistency with the text.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Add something more about who Misato is when she is first mentioned in the characters section.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice work
  • The lead also needs to be expanded to 3 or 4 good-sized (5-7 sentence) paragraphs.
 Done Should be good now, but I did not go over 400 words. Can do more if you feel it is necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lemurbaby: Alright that should take care of that. You are a tough reviewer, I think this is closing in on FA now! Hah! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Once I'm done with the last copy edit, I'll pass the article. I'd recommend that you do a top-to-bottom copy edit of all the other articles that are going through the GA review process now. Even with this one I'm still finding sentences that were clearly written by a non-native speaker that you missed in your edits. It happens when we spend lots of time looking at the same material over and over (believe me, I know), so you might want to have someone else copy edit them for you. Let me know as each article gets copy edited and you have begun working your way through the other review comments, and I will start striking the points you have addressed. - Lemurbaby (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The editor from Italy has only edited this page I believe, but agreed. I am finding issues even in my old GA of some awkward wordings that I missed in my old copy edit. The problem is that I am far from being the best copy editor and I need some mentoring to help catch such things. I printed out the 14 page article and hand checked it through, going back every once in awhile to re-read it. Clearly, being a native speaker and writer does not automatically result in very high level or professional prose. To be fair, I spot errors in other people's prose much better than my own for reasons I don't understand - even separated by months from my own work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast section[edit]

This section is entirely unnecessary and just taking up space. There are only a handful of articles on anime and manga that feature cast listings in this table format and they have all been produced as a result of ChrisGualtieri's sweeping changes to these articles that have no consensus. The information contained within this section is better served at the list of characters article, as it is done on every other anime and manga page on the English Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What does its removal do that improves the page? It is a clear and easy form of data presentation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
A giant table listing the main cast, their Japanese voice actors, and their English voice actors is cluttering the page up. Again, this information is just as clearly and easily presented in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters and it does not need to be included on this article in the form you prefer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Ryulong, the cast info can easily be dynamically presented within the plot summary rather than taking unnecessary space with a table. Example: "Shinji Ikari (voiced by Megumi Ogata in Japan, Spike Spencer in America)".Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the cast list in the main article is good, and is something we should add to other anime articles. The cast is "real-world" information of the sort that I think should be the focus in encyclopedia articles. I think adding cast lists to our articles will improve their quality. While the character list does include the cast, it is spread out across the page, and I think it is better to also have the main cast (not the entire cast) listing in a cast list in the main article. I disagree with the idea of including the cast in the plot summary, as that seems to be mixing two very different pieces of information. Calathan (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, it is jarring to include the character name and their original Japanese voice actor and/or their English voice actor upon mentioning. This is not a problem for major Hollywood movies because you deal with living people who's portrayal is iconic and identifiable without further explanation. Like Tim Curry, but would you really need to put Billy Bob Thorton after mentioning Jigo at Princess Mononoke? Different media, different information. Not everything is going to be best presented in the same fashion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a question of including "real-world information". The character lists have long been the location where casting information is retained in order to keep the main article free of unnecessary tables. This is the formatting employed by 99% of all other articles in the anime and manga subject area and it is simply an introduction by ChrisGualtieri, who has been attempting to make this and other pages examples of a new formatting that he prefers to present the information in despite the wishes of the rest of the editors in the subject area. It is unwieldy to include this information here. There is enough information on the page to present a real world context of the program that a cast list is simply superfluous, particularly when this cast is not unique to this one aspect of the series and is shared amongst the half dozen films and other projects as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm holding off until mediation is done because this will just turn into more arguing and continuing to make attacks on the editor and not the argument is poor form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, these seem to be the exact same arguments we went through before.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - It is just your opinion. You still haven't provided a reason why it should not be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be that all the reasons posed in your failed attempt at creating Bleach (anime) hold here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Brief music section[edit]

Ryulong, the music is important to the article and you should not just remove perfectly cited material. I've briefly covered the key composer, the theme songs and provided extremely brief information about each one. Just like briefly covering the characters is important for establishing context and assisting in the understanding of the subject, the music plays a major role and should be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The music clip does not meet WP:NFCC. You did not properly link to the article on the song that we have on the project. You did not format song titles properly. It is irrelevant to say how many times "Fly Me to the Moon" has been remixed for the series, a fact that is also poorly sourced.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
SOFIXIT. I linked to the music and the song. The file was already in use and meets NFCC. You are mad about a lack of a link so you removed the whole thing? That's not helpful at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not remove the whole thing. I removed music player template and the content that I discovered to be superfluous or poorly sourced. Stop accusing me of doing shit I did not do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The media is gone. I do not see your rationale for removal under NFCC. Please state it or replace it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
8. Contextual significance. There is no contextual significance for the use of the song on this page. 3a. Minimal usage. There are already many non-free items on this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ending Theme:[edit]

"The end theme of the series was a version of "Fly Me to the Moon" arranged and sung by Claire Littley" is not correct--there are at least 20 and maybe 26 different versions of the ending theme, "Fly Me to the Moon" sung by different single and group artists--including most of the female cast members. The constantly changing nature of the final theme is perhaps one of the most interesting or significant elements in the music of the Evangelion series. For such a dense article on the series, I might expect a mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Is NERV part of the UN?[edit]

Should NERV personnel be categorized as UN personnel similar to members of UNIT in Doctor Who? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing it, I don't see any mention of the UN in this article. It would seem unlikely that this would be a defining characteristic without meriting mention in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
NERV receives funding from the UN, but the personnel are not controlled or related to the UN - save those who transported the Eva that one time and are not members of Nerv. The addition would be trivial and confusing - after all, the mention is effectively a single line that has absolutely no bearing on the plot. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
SEELE isn't mentioned either, maybe this needs to be fixed. NERV is nominally part of the UN (I think Misato says this in the anime), but in practice it's just funded by the UN and uses the UN for its conventional weaponry and transport. I think I saw "UN" on a NERV personnel uniform at one point in the series or the End… —innotata 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputes to include genres[edit]

All right. Someone (whom I suspect that he has using IPs as well as an account, OrangeSniper (talk · contribs), to avoid edit warring) has been repeatedly adding genres without discussion, even though they are backed up by reliable sources such as Crunchyroll. However, since the note requires that genres are to be discussed, I (and numerous other editors) have reverted it back to the two main genres of the series, as some of us find it to be excessive. We should discuss the matter here to avoid an edit war. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Science fiction, drama and action are all redundant to the genres already listed, primarily Mecha. Also, the library section of their website (which is being cited) is user-edited, which fails WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I think what it has now "Mecha, Post-apocalyptic" is accurate and sufficient. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Another IP has attempted to add the following "genres": Philosophical drama, Action, Psychological thriller, Deconstruction. I will dispute that Eva is a thriller. And while there are philosophical elements in the series, no reviewer or annalist has placed it in the philosophical genre. Finally, deconstruction is a form of analyst and is not itself a genre. I've already touched on action above, so will not reiterate the point. —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Philosophical as a genre... not entirely "unplaced", but I shouldn't open the door to such non-sense. Splitting genres to finer and finer categories is rather pointless, but so would be adding additional genres to allow for its inclusion. The overarching themes are adequate and quickly verifiable in all respectable publications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe just "Psychological"? I've often seen brief descriptions of NGE that describe it as a mecha series that turns into a psychological series halfway through[9]; the article talks about how they made a shift toward psychology and the individual characters later on, with plenty of sources. That pretty much covers everything not covered by "Mecha" and "Post-apocalyptic" that users have added. —innotata 03:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort, but we limit the genres to what is key and most commonly identified. Post-apocalyptic mecha is the setting and genre core - and before you slap others on, you might as well point out it follows a "Monster-of-the-week" genre too. But let's not blanket this page with a bunch of increasingly useless genres. Like "beta male protagonist genre". Which, before all other spurious labels, would obviously win out because Shinji might as well be the archetype of that genre. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Evangelion continuity[edit]

Can someone please tell me what is considered "canon" in the original Neon Genesis Evangelion? I know the Rebuilds might be a sequel (or a reboot) to Neon Genesis, but are the manga and video games canon?

I know for a fact that NGE and EoE are canon Alecaluong (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


I agree that we should include "controversy" in the lead but what exactly was controversial? Themes, right? "Neon Genesis Evangelion gained widespread critical acclaim as well as controversy" doesn't make sense at all so maybe we could write something like this:

Neon Genesis Evangelion gained widespread critical acclaim. Regarded as a critique and deconstruction of the mecha genre, the series has become a cultural icon and influenced an artistic and technical revival of the anime industry. Nevertheless, the series themes have also been a subject of controversy.

What do you guys think? UnknownUsername480 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about that logo, I want it gone![edit]

Let me make a point that you need to remember why I hated that logo to exist in this page: First of all I don't like it as for me, its considered as a eyesore rather than a picture to represent an article. Second this is 2017 and people don't care about what picture is to be used on 'AN ANIME ARTICLE' these days since everything needs to be up to date. And third, I replaced that logo with the bluray cover because those also counts via rules. I never liked seeing a logo representing an article alone, it looks mismatched and unpleasing! Other words: its a matter of taste and article aesthetic, and i'm actually enraged for a whole week over it!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm sorry but the logo won't be removed just because you didn't like it. Nobody complained about the logo except you. Not to mention, you were being rude towards @Diogatari: and me. And what taste are you talking about? This is Wikipedia not Anime forum. The article looks beautiful with the logo. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The title[edit]

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 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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neon Genesis Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)