Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Summaries in this article vs. individual articles

Do the characters that have their own articles really need some of the extensive write-ups that they have in this article? It seems to me that a single paragraph for each of these characters would be sufficient, with the extra information either moved to their articles or deleted outright if it's redundant. Also, it would help to reduce the article size. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 03:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If I get time tonight, I'm going to either cut down or outright remove a lot of this material. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Two months later and no further discussion. I'm going to talk this over with Gwern, Folken, and radioactive since they seem to be the most active participants in editing the Evangelion articles; if I don't hear any dissension from them, I'll start working on shortening the entries by the end of the week. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been in a bit of a furlough due to end of college testing; after which I have literally nothing to do but sit at a computer for weeks on end editing Evangelion stuff and I plan MASSIVE updates. I wouldn't mind shortening them here though: it's just a list linking to bigger articles; we'll need to incorporate information from here into the main articles though, just incase the main articles missed any minor details. Remember gentlemen, Rebuild of Eva 1.0 comes out September 1st; we need to be done with (Wiki) Project Eva before the first real footage is released. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 07:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the characters bio here should be shortened, and all the extensive info/content should be kept for the proper individual articles for each character...Folken de Fanel 10:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with trimming, so long as it only took place in the sections with {{main}} (ie, a full article exists for that character) and as long as the trimmed material is verified to already be in the full article. I have no problem with Don't repeat yourself but I particularly don't like removal of material in the guise of refactoring. --Gwern (contribs) 15:36 18 April 2007 (GMT)

Exactly. The characters with their own articles are who I was talking about; those characters who only appear in this article don't need to have anything more done than maybe some copyediting and expansion. Any info which appears here that doesn't show up in the main articles would be moved to the main articles. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm going to do with the sections is move the character info out of those god-awful userboxes and give it some formatting (like the character article for RahXephon), then commence with the paring down. I've already cut down Misato's section, give some feedback if you catch this while I'm working, s'il-vous plait. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would go so far as to remove all a chara's vital statistics (age, etc., all the way thru VA) that already appears on their own page, as in a sense this info too is extraenous being that it now shows up in both places. --BrokenSphere 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think I'll leave that info in this article for the time being. If enough people think it should be stricken, I'll do it if no one else does. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that keeping that info in does maintain consistency throughout this article as well. --BrokenSphere 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with the infoboxes? They're at least better than random freeform bolded text... --Gwern (contribs) 01:57 21 April 2007 (GMT)

The formatting and crazy sizes of those infoboxes grated on my nerves every time I went into this article. IMO, having the personal info and voice actors pulled out and listed is cleaner and makes that info more obvious. As I previously mentioned, I loosely based this new formatting on this article, which I also help maintain. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've done about all the damage I can do. I know that there are a TON of redundant Wikilinks that need to be pared out, but right now I'm too tired to do much more with this page. Anyone see any glaring issues with the edits? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on paring down the character bios in the this article, though I think it should be taken it much further than proposed so far. For example, Misato Katsuragi's article should say something like, "Misato Katsuragi is the Chief Operations Officer at NERV. She commands the Eva pilots in battle. She is also Shinji and Asuka's guardian," there'd be a picture, a link to her full article, and that would be it — just the bare necessities. My point being, the name of this article is "List of Characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion," not "A Bunch of Really Brief Bios of Characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion." Radioactive afikomen 08:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...I dunno, I like having a brief synopsis of each character that has a main article. I say leave it as it is unless there's a lot of agreement with paring the "main article" characters' entries down as you suggest. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be the point of paring it down? One doesn't come to this page looking for a full biography, obviously, since the full articles exist at the appropriate names with appropriate redirects, but I don't think readers would come here just to find a spare bulleted list of linked names. --Gwern (contribs) 18:08 27 April 2007 (GMT)

Good rewrite on Aoba, Gwern. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Freudian Oedipus Complex? I don't think so.

I clicked on the link to see what that was, and apparently its the desire to have sex with your mother. Now, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. How exactly would Shinji be expressing this by climbing into a robot which, unbeknownst to him, has his mother's soul watching over him? He wants his father's approval, and that of others, which he clearly states as the reason why he pilots, when asked in one episode.

I vote that be removed from the article, unless someone can mention a reason why its it in there.

Remember, Shinji was very young when his mother died. He may have longed for a mother, or anyone to care about him, but wishing to for a mother, and wishing to have sex with your mother, are two totally unrelated things.Dream Focus 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think very highly of Sigmund FraudFreud and the whole Oedipus complex idea is thrown around far too much in cases where someone shows an "abnormal" attraction towards their mother. The main problem with making diagnoses in the psychiatric profession is that there is no base line for what is normal. How do you judge what is an abnormal attraction towards ones mother? I agree with you that Shinji's behaviour in the series does not sufficiently indicate any significant evidence of him having Oedipus complex (Whatever that evidence is). The speculation should be removed. — cheese-cube 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My question is: Someone edited the article on Misato to say that she had an Electra complex due to her love/hate relationship with Kaji being based on his similarities to her father. I reverted this, but in thinking about it, it's been quite some time since I've seen the series so the comparison may not be all that far off. Anyone with a better psych background than me have a good counterargument? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Without WP:ATT, no. Just state what's in the plot: She compares Kaji to her father explicitly. Perhaps you could link to the Electra complex, but it would be wrong to categorically stating that she has it without a reliable source.--GunnarRene 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who added the Electra complex to Misato's article. At the time, I thought it was unfair that Shinji's article went on at length about his Oedipus complex, when he never actually stated that he was drawn to his mother, and Misato's article had nothing about an Electra complex, when she explicitly stated that she was "seeking her father in Kaji." I realize now that both are complete fan speculation and both should be removed. In fact, unless a character's mental condition is blindingly obvious (like Asuka's depression or Shinji's anxiety disorder), everything on mental conditions in the character articles should be removed. This would apply to Misato's supposed AADD, as well.

We should treat Neon Genesis Evangelion like a major work of literature: speculation by fans on a character's mental condition is not allowed in such articles, only speculation by notable psychologists or literary authorities from published sources. Radioactive afikomen 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, this policy on fan speculation should be applied to the entire Neon Genesis Evangelion article. Radioactive afikomen 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Which article? The character list, the NGE franchise article, the NGE TV anime one (when it gets split out from the franchise one), what? There is a lot of them, you know.

And removing any mention of Oedipus complex strikes me as a cheapening of the article: mentioning the Oedipus complex in relation to Shinji has been cliche since day one. Not mentioning it does a disservice to the reader. --Gwern (contribs) 18:23 23 April 2007 (GMT)

Fine, I won't remove the Oedipus complex part. But my point on fan speculation still remains. And we should still pare down some of the rampant Oedipus complex speculation (last I checked, Shinji's article speculated that his desire to "be inside" Unit 01 was evidence of an Oedipus complex).

The problem with this sort of theory is there is no objective standard for judging it; no one knows what evidence against it would look like. It is an untestable theory. Radioactive afikomen 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment... "Not mentioning it does a disservice to the reader" — a disservice? Just because it is "cliche" is no reason to include something. Until I read the Wikipedia article on NGE , I had no idea that Shinji was supposed to have an Oedipus complex. Fans should feel free to come to that sort of conclusion on their own, but that does not mean that that particular point of view — because that's what it is, just a point of view — should be enshrined on Wikipedia. I think it does "a terrible disservice to the reader." Radioactive afikomen 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does a disservice to not even mention or suggest the possibility; I don't know how anyone can watch the series and movies and not fleetingly think of the idea at least once. When you consider the fair number of Freudian terms seen in the series and elsewhere, the number of fans who (like Fujie 2004) latch onto it as a term to describe Shinji, and the relative closeness of the term to the actual events (bearing in mind that psychological vocabulary seems insufficient in the first place to describe the particularly messed up bits of Eva), why wouldn't we mention it? --Gwern (contribs) 18:13 27 April 2007 (GMT)

Anyone should feel free to reach that conclusion on their own, but unless someone involved in NGE's production itself, or some other highly-placed source, has suggested that Shinji has an Oedipus complex, it is nothing more than fan speculation. A theory such as this necessitates weasel words, like "Many fans think", or something else to indicate that it is ulimately just fan speculation. Radioactive afikomen 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The last edit

In spite of the last edit, I'm not comfortable with the statement about Kyoko and Asuka. In the manga, she's clearly shown trying to manipulate someone, but I can't really tell if what the reader sees is a past event that cuts to the present or Kyoko's memories in the present filtered through her insanity. For those who've read the manga, what do you think? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Character age section

Is the information that this section is based on in the sites listed at the bottom of the page? I glanced through some of the links, but I didn't see anything that definitely matched the info in the section? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Keel claims?

"Some fans believe him to be the character from the anti-Semitic legend of The Wandering Jew, but there is no evidence in the series or from any other source to support this claim."

So, this claim has no basis in the series or any spinoff media. Given this, why is it included in the wiki? It could just as easily be claimed that "Some fans believe him to be the Tooth Fairy." --82.13.149.11 23:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because otherwise people would keep adding it, as it's so tempting to think Keel is Ahasuerus, and many newbies would think it. --Gwern (contribs) 01:49 9 August 2007 (GMT)

I think this is one of those old fan debate things that probably will never get a real citable source. As I get time, I'll try to find something on it...hopefully something aside from web forums. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Too many images"

I've asked about the {{non-free}} template on the policy page...hopefully someone will get back with me soon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Their answer will be simple: They will spew their policy, delete teh images, tell you to cry about it afterwards. The last part isn't true at all but they will say get over it, and then give you their policy again. Good luck.TheUltimate3 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have received some feedback, and the consensus appears (for the time being) to be that the article doesn't constitute a violation of the policy, so I'm going to remove the template. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and see if anything changes. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

TheUltimate3 is talking about what happened with the Naruto character pages, if you didn't know this already. The consensus for those appears to have been that the images, which were trimmed down already from having all the characters illustrated to only certain ones from a few months ago, should be kept, with the results seen. Personally I've suggested culling down the use of images on some of the Ranma pages and have been pulling several minor character uploads from the Battle Angel Alita pages I've worked on, so it's not just this particular page that's been or will be affected. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the unrest over the subject of non-free images, I suspected that other pages would be affected in the same way, if they weren't already...I'm just glad that I got some constructive feedback. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here's the link to the discussion, for reference in case any more attempts to remove the images are made. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The images are a violation of our policy for non-free content and the Foundations resolution (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy). They must remain removed. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also a good page to read to explain the removal. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting on Durin to answer a question I originally posed to Rockstar...if the images do have to go (and it's looking more and more like they will) then I'd like to preserve them long enough to find a way to put their sources into the article. I'll ping Durin again and see what he says. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a viable solution to the problem has been achieved. The images for the articled characters have been removed since their articles have images, and for the non-articled characters, references have been provided which feature images of the characters. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mana's name

I've contacted one of the principal people at EvaCommentary.org for a source on Mana's last name...the vessel does exist but a source is needed explicitly explaining the connection. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mana has two sorces.

1. The character on the movie "Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honneamise" by GAINAX.
2. One of the Japanese reading of kanji character "愛", which means love.

Rider of Midland 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that officially documented anywhere? We need something saying "her name comes from ____" along the same lines of Anno's essay about the canon characters. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are official. Ritsuro Hashimoto, the director of Girlfriend of Steal, answered to the interview.(pp.102 "Mana…… 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 鋼鉄のガールフレンド メモリアルブック(Mana...... Neon Genesis Evangelion Girlfriend of Steal Memorial Book)", Aspect.Co.Inc, 1998, ISBN 978-4757201149)Rider of Midland 11:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool; I've put the information in the article. Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.