Talk:RahXephon/Archive 3

clean up

Guys this article needs a total rewrite, there is a lot of useless shit here. There is no need to mention every review and series it is even remotely like.

Japanese culture can be put in (for example) a trivia section.

Either way, way too long and way too unfocused. Needs to be refined and stuff that matters kept, while the other 80% removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.7.37 (talk • contribs)

I disagree completely; I think this is one of the better anime-related articles on Wikipedia, and could be a featured article candidate. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which parts of it would you like to see removed or moved into other parts? It might be slightly long but it's shorter than quite a few featured articles, and shorter than George W. Bush for example :-). I tried to aim for as much out-of-universe information and style as possible, while still remembering that the characters and plot is the most important part of a narrative. --GunnarRene 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We might remove a couple of the series comparisons, possibly. But I say absolutely no to making a trivia section. In general, we don't like to have trivia sections because they collect trivial information of no importance. The cultural references are an important aspect of the article's subject and should be kept, but perhaps shortened. Be bold and start trimming, then we'll see if we agree. :-) --GunnarRene 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. So now people are complaining about it being too referenced? I guess it really is true - you can't win. --Gwern (contribs) 21:53 29 November 2006 (GMT)

I say no trims, it's fine as it is. If any substantial improvements need to be made, I say submit the article for either GA status or a peer review and let those who take on the task do the evaluating. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As of this moment, the readable prose has about 6 200 words, which is within the 6 000 to 10 000 word limit that is suggested in Wikipedia:Article size. I think this length is fine, especially since the article has many sections that cater to different encyclopedic angles. --GunnarRene 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's an extremely loose and only suggestive guideline anyway. It should be however many is needed to cover the subject fully and do the Right Thing. --Gwern (contribs) 01:23 1 December 2006 (GMT)

GAC Nom?

In recognition of the awesome work done here by GunnarRene and the ohers, I plan to nominate this article for GAC, after having ensured that all the images have FU tags and rationale. Does anyone have an objection/work pending/commentary? Thanks.--SidiLemine 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it; GunnarRene's done a splendid job with this article and it deserves recognition. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree: Tremendous. I'l still go for Peer review beforehand, however. You never know.--SidiLemine 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we go for Peer Review first and then straight for Featured Article after taking the suggestions from peer review into effect. After all, Good Article is meant for articles that are too short to reach FA.--GunnarRene 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, PR launched. I wonder about the FAC thought. Most of the criterion are certainly met, bu I worry about the prose quality. This is beyond my ability, so I'll list the article at the Copyeditors Extraordinaires too. --SidiLemine 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to FAC with this, we'tre definitely going to need more robust episode citations. I'd gladly do it, but I've never seen the series. See Serial Experiments Lain, Planetes, and Excel Saga for acceptable ones. --SidiLemine 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Some of the episode citations will still be just episode numbers, but I'll add information and perhaps short quotes to some of them. --GunnarRene 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode citations improved.--GunnarRene 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I made some preliminary recommendations on the peer review.--Nohansen 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --GunnarRene 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Something that I've thought about working on but haven't yet is that there are a number of redundant Wikilinks in the article. I don't know how much of a concern this is, but it's something that I've tried to eliminate from the Evangelion articles as much as possible, so I thought I'd mention it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Some link redundancy is good for the sake of navigation, but not when it's too much.--GunnarRene 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops...

I think I hit something I wasn't suppose to in the infobox image. "Revert"? revert what?? I didn't mean it. Sorry!--Nohansen 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-)) --GunnarRene 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pic(s) in Central Plot section

Would the Central Plot section be better served by a pic of Ayato and Haruka together? When I was fiddling with the location of the pic, I tried to add in the pic of Haruka from the character list, but it didn't look good so I didn't put her pic in. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a picture of a character is better for the characters section. Because of the current content of the central plot section, a picture of Tokyo Jupiter would be ideal. --GunnarRene 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we have enough fair use images in this article allready, so I won't add any more. We'll just leave the image where you put it and re-caption it, I think.--GunnarRene 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a character group image to the characters section. Re-using the same image does not increase the proportion of reproduction. --GunnarRene 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that in a departure from most articles on still in-copyright works of fiction, we have not just one but two liber images (both PD).--GunnarRene 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian article

I'm having a look ath the Russian article. It looks a bit prettier than the English one, but it's mostly made up of the media list and a trivia section. I like the characters section though. It's pretty. I see that many of those media lists are copied from the English version. But get this: Somebody made a pretty episode list [1] less than a day before I had the exact same idea. [2]. Creepy telepathy/Schumann resonance thing.... I'm now improving our episode list with ideas from the Russian article. Yay for nternational cooperation. :-) --GunnarRene 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a telepathy. An episode list in russian anime-articles is normal in the Russian Wikipedia. Often russian articles is written by translating same english versions, but always extended from others sources.(m81pavl)195.162.60.7 06:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The new infobox image was inspired by the russian article. But I used an actual DVD cover without any cropping or manipulation. --GunnarRene 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The new image works much better than the old ones; good on ya. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to last edit and comments

I think that most of the edits you made work; I'll tweak a couple, change 'em back if you don't like them. As for the comment regarding Ayato re-discovering his love for Haruka, that's referring to the fact that they loved each other before Tokyo Jupiter was established, and that Ayato learns the truth about their past and finds his love for Haruka again. I'll add something in to make that sound a little better. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Thanks for starting copyediting.

I'm presently making some changes of my own to the reception section, but the other sections should be mostly stable. I hope to be done with it by the time you've copyedited the rest of the article. --GunnarRene 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made my changes. Please continue with copyedit. --GunnarRene 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Something that might be worth adding to the article is a pic of the DVD cover for Pluralitas Concentio. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but it doesn't seem to add much to the article. We already show the mecha, Ayato and Reika in the infobox... Maybe in the List of RahXephon media article?--GunnarRene 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The media article would be a better place for it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening theme and Evangelion

Something that occurred to me this morning...one area of similarity between RahXephon and Evangelion is their opening themes, as both feature just about the entire principal cast in quick image flashes, and both contain some notable visual spoilers to significant events in their respective series. I don't know if any of the reviewers picked up on this, and it may not be significant enough to add to the article, but I thought I'd bring it up. --Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't most openings feature most of the cast? I think so, which would only leave "visual spoilers", a pretty paltry thing to mention. --Gwern (contribs) 18:10 10 January 2007 (GMT)

Search for the RahXephon Evangelion intro video. It's funny. But both "visual spoilers" and showing the characters are rather common for intros. --GunnarRene 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be overcomplicating the issue. I see your points on the cast, so that probably isn't worth consideration anymore. Here's what I was getting at with the "spoilers." In the theme for NGE, there are a lot of quick-cut images that give information that isn't presented (to my recollection) in the actual series, such as "Absolute Terror Field" which is always referred to as "AT Field," and the type designations of the Evas (Prototype, Test, Production). Also, Unit 01 is shown with wings, which doesn't happen at all in the series but shows up in The End of Evangelion. The same thing goes for the images of the Tree of Sephiroth in the theme's beginning. Now, in the case of RahXephon, the statue-like image at the beginning of the opening theme is actually Quon's RahXephon, which floored me when I watched the last coupla episodes as I had been puzzling over what it could mean for the whole series. Also, the myriad clocks that are shown in the theme might just seem like pretty window dressing but are actually a subtle hint to the time dilation inside Tokyo Jupiter and the resulting age difference issue between Ayato and Haruka. Another thing that really stands out is the final image of Reika and Haruka; if you take the time to study their faces you can easily see that they're identical, but the casual viewer might not catch that. Different approaches in the two series, but in the end both are throwing important plot details at the viewer. I may be just babbling, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not babbling. When it comes to the TERRA logo, that "spoiler" isn't just present in the opening but it's shown by TERRA in the series and public knowledge in universe. The face in the opening isn't recognizable as Quon's though. It looks more like.... a female version of Ayato augh spit my eyes make it go away. Heh. :-) Anyway, not something for the article. Discussion over. (Points to talk header and many excellent anime forums where we can continue the discussion.) --GunnarRene 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool; I figured it might not be significant enough to put in the article but at least you see where I'm coming from. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The matching faces from the opening might be something for the characters article. We might even make a flashing memo of death type deal. Or is that original research. :-) --GunnarRene 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh...that might be stretching things a bit. I like the idea, though; if you want to play with it, I'm not gonna argue. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

RahXephon has been listed for re-assessment. If you are not a major contributor to this article, please consider re-assessing it.--GunnarRene 15:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was A-Class. --GunnarRene 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

September 11th

Regarding the anonymous edit reverted here: [3] I agree that the full date should not be in the infobox. But does it have any significance that the final episode was aired just as the first anniversary of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks was rolling in over Japan? I strike it down to coincidence, but since the editor emphasized it, maybe there is something to it? --GunnarRene 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so...unless there's some official statement out there of something that connects the two events, I can't see how their timing could be anything more than coincidence. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of RahXephon media is a Featured List Candidate

List of RahXephon media is a Featured List Candidate. Disucssion here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of RahXephon media. --GunnarRene 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Producers

Hm. There were four producers: Minami from Bones, Nagata from Media Factory, Sasaki from Victor Entertainment, and Kawakami from Fuji TV. But I think it's more emportant to tell about which *studio* actually made the show than who produced it. Listing all those companies breaks the flow in the lead, I feel.--GunnarRene 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate and covering to say that the show was "made" by Bones, than just "animated" by Bones. They did the design, editing, voice, audio, etc. work too. Media Factory and Fuji TV mostly distributed after the fact. --GunnarRene 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the credits for the series (see the section at the Japanese wiki for more information), Bones is listed as being behind the two following credits: original concept (along with Yutaka Izubuchi) and animation production (アニメーション制作 animeshon seisaku) behind Rahxephon, therefore it is indeed accurate to say that it animated the series (as this is listed as such in the credits). Other parts of any anime series are handled by other companies specializing in that particular field which are never managed by the actual animation studio e.g. audio and sound are created by specialized sound/audio recording studios such as Fizz Sound Creation, Apu Meguru Studio, Half HP Studio, etc. As such, production companies are an essential part of the makeup of any television series or film, being listed on all the credits and involved in several essential factors of the series, handling several aspects of the series and thus, their contributions must be noted; for example, they are indeed often involved in the actual plot and composition of the series too, with companies such as the television networks and its timings, etc. holding considerable influence. Content must be included per verified facts (such as the official staff and credit listings), and a company's contributions should be cited therefore in that regard. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: The new policy is Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:V is deprecated (merged into WP:ATT. --GunnarRene 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "RahXephon project" and their members (Bones, Fuji TV, Media Factory and Victor Entertainment) should be noted in the production section, in fact I introduced it there, but I'd like to change the lead to say just "created by Yutaka Izubuchi and Bones" since they created the show and animation, and are the main copyright holders. All the other companies (except for Bones, Fuji TV, Media Factory and Victor Entertainment) are subcontractors only. --GunnarRene 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything particular against noting those companies, but I want the WP:LEAD to be brilliant prose and to summarize the article.--GunnarRene 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be honored to do the staff list for you --Sjones23 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like the staff lists spun out to other articles. List of RahXephon staff could be one alternative. Another could be to merge it with the characters article.

Further, the episodic credits (i.e. script, storyboard, episode director and episodic animation director) should be moved or copied to the episode articles. Perhaps it's best to copy instead of move, since I estimate that only about 10 of the episodes will have articles (not sure yet).

P.S: I first wrote that the manga was "written" by Momose, and a few days ago I started doubting that. I checked again last night, and of course, the original info as I entered it was correct. Thanks, Sjones23, for reverting this unnecessary edit with a totally incorrect edit summary :-) --GunnarRene 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome anytime, GunnarRene. Thanks for helping me out. I will move this staff list to create a daughter article for good. :-) --Sjones23 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

GunnarRene, please do not remove an entire section simply based on a request you make. The section can be linked later on after the article is created, but you should not remove it completely from the article earlier. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 08:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dare create the list myself, since we don't seem to have a precedent for staff list articles. I moved it to talk after waiting for a response for well over a week.--GunnarRene 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The staff lists are an essential part of any anime article, as the staff are responsible for the makeup and production for the series as a whole; this is also present in almost every good article on the Japanese wiki and is often added to several articles here as part of translation initiatives (see, for example, High School Kimengumi, etc.). It should have remained on the article before it was moved to a new one, as it is an essential part of the article. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that our articles should have more out-of-universe and human related information - but that should be in the form of prose, not so long lists in the main article. If you look at ja:ラーゼフォン, you see that the article is really start-class material. The article on High School Kimengumi is borderline B/Start. See some our featured articles on media: Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media We commonly include cast members and significant staff like producers, writers and directors - usually not the sound engineer and subcontracting companies. We usually leave that for credit databases like IMDb (which is authoritative for Hollywood titles) or other databases. I moved it to talk because even though it does not fit one of the points under WP:NOT#IINFO it skirts close to it.--GunnarRene 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed the List of RahXephon staff article for good and I moved all the "really important" staff members back to the main article, this time, it is for the greater good of the editors. --Sjones23 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Prioritized to-do list

Based on in-comming links this article is priority 2; the same as the city of Stockholm, Homeschooling and 9/11 conspiracy theories. --GunnarRene 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to evaxephon.com

An offer to return it. I've seen arguments for deletion: yes, there are some features of Wikipedia:OR (however the author writes The gallery's purpose is to be a gallery of similarities, not to convince you that RahXephon copied Evangelion), but these are also in the opinions from reviewers presented now. To minimize OR influence, it is possible to insert a link directly to the list of similarities between NGE and RX. What about WP:RS: the site is reliable as a collection of similarities. In my eyes this is more essential than its lacking wide-accepted authority as a source of evaluation, taking into account that the author tends to be informative. So the foundation in the rules for returning would be also WP:IAR. That link improves Wikipedia. 217.198.224.13 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. User:GunnarRene we'll let this talk section hang around and see if a third person has an opinion in November TalkArchive: it looks that I'm the third... :-)217.198.224.13 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See the user's talk page regarding reliability. I think it would be more helpful if you submitted the link to anipike, as the user agreed.--GunnarRene 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, form your link: However, I believe that many of the similarities are proof of imitation, nonetheless. If a similarity doesn't convince you, then simply ignore it.--GunnarRene 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link again. It's not a biography of a living person, but it fails WP:ATT or WP:V. We have multiple reviewers on each side of the issue referenced and quoted. Fan sites belong in a directory unless they can be used as convenience links. --GunnarRene 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

CD Boxset

In case I forget to do it myself, the recent boxset of RahXephon soundtracks contained a version of the movie soundtrack with a different track-listing - basically all the 'repeats' from the earlier soundtracks were removed and some other tracks from the series were added, also one track was removed. EvilRedEye 13:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)