Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Newtype Top 25 anime - Evangelion takes top spot

This is the link: [1]

Apparently, Newtype USA held a poll for the top 25 greatest anime of all time. Neon Genesis Evangelion took first place, with Cowboy Bebop in second place. Should this be included in the main article?

If someone knows how, that would be great.

--g8or8de 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It would go in the section about the reception and reaction. Actually, Evangelion is bound to have received some actual awards, so how about finding some of those? --GunnarRene 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about the opening credits

This really isn't of pertinence to the article, but I figure this is the best place to ask...in the opening credits, during the scenes where the female silhouettes move across the screen over Shinji's head, who is the last one? The first three are obviously Rei, Asuka, and Misato, but I haven't been able to tell if the last one is Misato again or someone else. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Romance?

I've heard that the A/S relationship is supposed to show how two people are trying to understand eachother. Anno has stated that both A/S and R/S can happen, but I haven't found a meaning to the R/S relationship. I've heard some that states that Shinji's relationship with Rei is purely Mom-son relationship , but I don't believe this. I don't know if its the same thing, so I hope you guys can help--Ganderman 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This may not be what you're looking for, but to be completely honest, saying that a relationship is "possible" or that it "can happen" is not an incredible insight for these characters. Anno may have given the statement without thinking much about it. Shinji's character was definitely what we could describe as desperate... he would have accepted any kind of relationship with just about anyone. His ready acceptance of Kaworu I think is an example of this. I know this is a grey area, but... Kaworu is not the kind of guy that other guys warm up to immediately. But Shinji, like many or probably all of the other characters in this show, is in a distraught emotional condition and isn't being picky. And I'm not saying you're reading too much into this(I wouldn't say that about anything in any part of Eva), but I think it is possible that there isn't a "meaning" to the R/S relationship, or the possibility of one. On the other hand, I would say that to sum up the A/S relationship as being "supposed to show how two people are trying to understand each other" is probably far too simple. The simple relationships that the characters actually have speak volumes of the emotional states of the characters, and it's probably best to take all of that at face value. KevinJRussell 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Response" section

Right now it just seems like an exposition of the circumstances surrounding the ending movies in particular. It may need some critical response to the TV show as well to make it more complete (some of the content in "Influence" could be used in response, perhaps showing how well it was received by both the masses and the critics [at around the time of release], statistical popularity, etc. , transitioning into reception of the series towards the end and transitioning into the end movie section already there). --Dch111 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting "Rei's interactions with Shinji" to be added onto Rei's page

Since Asuka has her own interactions that shape Shinji's character, I think we should have one for Rei as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderman (talk • contribs)

This could work; however, I think a lot of the information that would go under this section is already in Rei's article, and would just need to be moved and re-organized. Don't forget to sign your posts. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The reason I want to do this is to give some R/S-er's a chance to allow a relationship. Also a chance to think about why Shinji stares at Rei alot and other mysteries anbout the relationship. Not just a mom-son, but also a romanic relationship. After all, Anno has never claimed R/S and A/S to be true.--Sandmen never sleeps 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Ganderman 12:57, 30 November 2006

Uhhhh...if you're basing the need for this section on "shipping," then it doesn't need to happen; Wikipedia isn't the place to venture speculation about who Shinji might've formed a romance with. The section, if/when it's made, could benefit from mentioning the differences between the depiction of their relationship in the anime and the manga, but only from a purely content-driven angle. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but I believe Wikipedia should have a section dealing with Shinji and Rei's relationship based on the mom-son or romantic relationship. Sorry about that, would the things I just said be alright?--Sandmen never sleeps 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Ganderman 8:56 30 November 2006

I think so. If I get time, I'll try to work on this soon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is how many different opinions on the relationship will be. We'll have to stick to certain evidence on how Rei affects Shinji's character. May it be how she interacts with Shinji and how she helps him. And what the light the relationship may be in to show mom-son or romantic. I don't think we'll get any ansewers into how Rei and Shinji's relationship is, but we'll show how her character changes Shinji.--Sandmen never sleeps 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Major semantic error in the abstract

The abstract for this article says that one of the movies either "supplants" or "replaces" the final episodes of the series.

These words are synonyms. Change one. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.23.172 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Spam at bottom of page?

I noticed someone posted a somewhat rude comment about Wikipedians at the bottom of the references on this page, but I couldn't find any area to remove it when attempting to do so. Anyone who is better at editing check it out and remove it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.112.50 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Erm... what did you see, exactly, and where? Because I can't see any rude comments in the references. Maybe it was just some vandalism that someone reverted already? Nique1287 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of the Great Cleanup Campaign

Whereas I love NGE, and think this article has a lot of great material in it, I feel it's a shame that NGE isn't even a GA. I will do what I can to bring it there, as I think it's the better-suited anime to be carried to FA, in terms of notability, fandom, encyclopedic material, etc...

The first thing I did is to tag all of the "psychology, etc" section for facts. Given the almost endless online reviews of NGE available online, my guess is that everything and its opposite have been said, so it shouldn't be too difficult to source most of the statements done there. Some parts, however, have nothing to do there, no matter how well sourced. I understand a brief description of the different philosophers implied when an episode bears the name of a famous book. An extensive discussion between Sartre and Kierkegaard, however, is not an option. Before deleting big chunks, I would like to discuss where to put them, as they are really nice and I hate to throw away information. Is there an NGE wiki somewhere?

There will be lots to do before this can approach FA, but cleaning out the irrelevant stuff and sourcing all that can be should be the first step. Oh, and creating a "reception" section would be good, too. --SidiLemine 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in by saying "Bravo!" and "I am in." As a Wikipedia contributor on a variety of different subjects, I can say without hesitation that the NGE entry has been the biggest mess I have ever seen on Wikipedia. --NapoleonicStudent 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is no NGE wiki.

Why are the discussions of the philosophy not acceptable?

Also, Napoleonic, that's pretty harsh - you mustn't spend much time in Category:Cleanup or in Newpages! --Gwern (contribs) 20:24 9 January 2007 (GMT)

How I understand it is that the psychoanalysis "stuff" is un-sourced and seemingly out of context, so is not working. Like this, "Linebarger was raised in China, became the god-son of the nationalistic leader Sun Yat-sen, and during World War II, worked in psychological warfare on behalf of the U.S. Army, including propaganda efforts by the U.S. against the Japanese. Linebarger's work included strong influences from both East Asian culture and Christianity." can someone tell what this has to do with Evangelion? I'm not lying, this came out of THIS article--Nohansen 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gainax often references Linebarger's fiction. "Atomsk" in FLCL, "Instrumentality" in NGE, and so forth. Those are the most famous ones, anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 05:26 10 January 2007 (GMT)

The discussions of the philosophy will be very hard to present as directly relevant to the anime when it reaches FAC. While I see perfectly why a brief presentation of Sartre and the others is in order (I'm thinking about a sentence max, including a link to Existentialism), the reason why we use so much links is so we don't have to detail every possible thing. I'm thinking, let's present them, and let the reader make his own mind through the philosophy articles if he feels like it. After that, I am totally into detailing every possible philosophic interpretation of the anime that can be sourced. But I would reduce the above Linebarger citation of about half. --SidiLemine 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The philosophers' respective articles are insufficient for the purposes of explaining - NGE is... strange, particularly with respect to how it uses their philosophy. A sentence max is way too little. --Gwern (contribs) 18:26 10 January 2007 (GMT)

Perhaps a separate article for the psychoanalytical stuff? Of course, it should be borne in mind that anything that uncited can be cut. --Monocrat 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At least I removed that "citation needed" tag in the lead and replaced it with a reference to Anno's essay in the first manga volume. The philosophical references that are kept should be more than just "one-liners" with links, though. If explanation is not needed, then we can combine several concepts into one period. But in the cases where NGE use concepts in novel ways - such as how its "instrumentality" is not the same kind of instrumentality that it takes its name from but rather a complementation idea from a part of psychological theory - then we need to spend a little more time on it. Extended debates and related biography can be safely cut though. And I support a reception section very strongly. See Serial Experiments Lain, Excel Saga, and RahXephon. The Evangelion and Lain topics have an advantage over Excel and Rah in that the former two have many published, peer-reviewed, scholarly treatises devoted to them. And of those four, Evangelion is the most famous and controversial one. --GunnarRene 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the philosophy section. In the previous talk pages, someone objected and just removed it all, so I am (pleasantly) surprised it is back. Originally all sources were indeed cited, but many of the references go straight to books and essays in print and not online. The reason for the details is because just saying "it's from this technical philosophy book" doesn't make sense, I felt people would like to know what it is the philosopher said and maybe an example of that as it actually pertains to the anime. Perhaps a separate page could be made ("Philosophy and Evangelion") if it takes up too much space? I don't own Wikipedia obviously, I'm fine with the collective decisions, but I just thought I would make a comment on what I wrote and why. --StaticAge 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should restore it. It's not like it actually hurts the article, and I like to think some of my edits show that if you wait long enough, someone might come along and reference it. And for my part, I don't really care if they are print and not online sources. --Gwern (contribs) 04:39 11 March 2007 (GMT)

The Quest For Sources

Here are the sources I have found yet:

• Anime Jump review of the platinium edition
• Three pretty negative reviews by THEM Anime: First, Second, and Third.
• Review of the first volume by Sci Fi Weekly
• A dozen reviews by Anime on DVD, not counting the OVAs
• An OST Review by Sci Fi Weekly, you never know]
• A very short review by Anime News Network
• TV.com also has a blurb.

In all this I haven't found a single reference to any of the philosophers. Google searches, if promising, promise to be long and hard. If we wish to keep the said section as is, we will need lots of sources. Please list all you have here, so we can make out what's useable and what's not. Anyone has some print stuff scanned?--SidiLemine 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Not sure if this will help you, but [2] has some links to various quite verifiable papers most in pdf format, some even .edu. Didn't explore it too much but hope it helps. — Tutmosis 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidi, what about that "When the machines stop" article I sent you? BTW, Tutmosis, nice to see another editor who frequents the Anime manga web essay archive! --Gwern (contribs) 22:55 12 January 2007 (GMT)

You might also be able to find some academic and published (online) works at AnimeResearch.com and Intersections. Be careful about what papers you cite, though: I know that pop culture has to suffer the inclusion of the best of what there is, but a FAC would I think look askance at papers by undergraduates. Sources have to be verifiable and reliable.--Monocrat 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into them. I'm going through "When the machines stop" in search of explicit philosophers mentions; and through corneredangel to try to sort the actual academic essays from the glorified fanalyses. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Small update: the web seems to be full of interviews of Anno by notorious papers. I'm going to spend some time going through that first, as it's the most authoritative info we can find. I'll list here as it goes.--SidiLemine 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Should an Evangelion fan response section be added?

As one of the most popular anime of all time, Neon Genesis Evangelion has generated one of the most prolonged and active fan communities in the animation world. From the popularity (and difficulty) of cosplay and the massive amount of doujinshi, fan-made H games, and original garage models to the remarkable amount of fanfiction both obscure and well-known, the Evangelion legacy has largely continued since 1997 due to the efforts of the fan community. In just the fanfiction world alone, Mediaminer.org lists 539 individual stories, Fanfiction.net 147, Evafics.org 238, and Google has 276,000 results for the search 'Evangelion Fanfiction.' One particularly well-known fan project, Eva-R, has even attracted the attention of American voice actors Tiffany Grant (Asuka) and Tristan MacAvery (Gendo), who've lent their voice talents to radio drama-style versions of the story. Eva-R has also created some of their own animation in the form of trailers for the story.

This all said, the current version of the Evangelion Wikipedia page in relation to the fan response is extremely limited, consisting of only two lines of text at the end of the Characters section, and four lines at the end of the Influence section. It seems that the impact of fans of the franchise, which in no small part has spurred Gainax to make an additional four Evangelion films as well as dozens of 'non-cannon' games and spin-offs to suit the tastes of nearly every concievable fan-pairing of characters, is sorely under-represented. Therefore, I am curious as to whether a section of this article (or a seperate article altogher) should be created to address the fan activities surrounding Evangelion, and their continued influence on Gainax's handling of future developments and continuation of the franchise. If such an article or section were to be created, original research on the topics of trends and pairings in the fanfiction and doujinshi (in particular related to future official changes in Gainax's approach to the property) as well as annalysis of fan approval or unhappiness with the outcome original series could make this an interesting and valuable resource and companion to the already existing Evangelion article.

Is this a worthwhile addition to begin work on? --LainEverliving LainEverloving 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

t is not only worthwhile but direly needed. Please add everything you can source. The said section will also have to give some sales figures, awards, reviews, critics notations, some following works that are officially inspired/influenced by Evangelion, and academic studies of the show.--SidiLemine 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A fan response section will go a long way toward helping this article reach GA or even FA status, especially if it includes reviews from establish critics. The RahXephon article has, IMO, an excellent review/response section, and emulating its format and style would be a good idea. --Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The main criteria are that the section be based on verifiable and reliable sources. It would be nice if a fan section would also include stuff related to the Japanese fan community. Surely that has been written about?--Monocrat 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see also Excel Saga, Serial Experiments Lain and Madlax for more hints. Of course these didn't have the same kind of fan response that NGE had, but the stuff in there should still figure here if possible.--SidiLemine 09:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice. This is a project I would like to work on, but obviously, there's a lot to be done in order to make it good, and much research lies ahead. The biggest problem I have right now is that while I know quite a bit about EVA fanfiction (which was going to be one of my main focus points), there's very little (next to nothing in fact) that can be sourced for this. It's going to end up tagged as Original Research if I put anything in based on what I've collected so far. There is a lot of evidence of fan activity all over the internet, but aside from me collecting data myself and then somehow publishing it in a reputable, linkable source, I'm afraid that the road to getting this kind of information up will be rather long.

What I had wanted to do was write some details about the trends in EVA fanfiction and how they've influenced Gainax's decisions on marketing the characters and such (i.e., Rei/Shinji becomes a popular fan couple, Gainax introduces the Project Raise Ayanami game to allow fans to simulate this couple out-of-canon). You can see though that this would be rather difficult, since I am guessing (I am still somewhat new to Wikipedia) that aside from a sourced interview with a Gainax head confirming this that it would be removed or lower the article's quality. It should be rather obvious based on the amount of merchandise and non-cannon spin-offs that the fan community is impacting this (since without them to buy the products, the products would not be made), but it's hard to write and source this properly. The same goes for fan projects like EVA-R and ReDeath. Thus, other than trying to collect reviews of the series and films (which I am already in the process of doing), I'm a little unsure as to how to proceed and rather overwhelmed by the size and difficulty of this undertaking.

Does anyone have any advice, based on this? --LainEverliving LainEverloving 09:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, well. You seem to pose several different problems at once. To me, the logical course of action to achieve your goal would be:

1. List all "merchandise and non-cannon spin-offs" you know about, with their release press conferences, etc. Even if it doesn't make it to the reception section, it will need its own sub-section somewhere. I think apart from Gundam, Eva is the most productive anime series in this domain; this should be noted.
2. Try to find any press release from the same period, stating or implying the possible reasons for the release (as you point out, Gainax head is the top; but a small review in a gadget website is OK too, if it has any kind of notoriety and is not a forum.)
3. Try to find notorious anime sites (commercial, reviews, anything that has a certain status; Axela is a good indicator, but feel free to ask here) that list such fan fiction, or at least talks about it. This is the point you said would be difficult, and I agree, but a good google searche, and the help of the Animanga Wikiproject should be enough to find at least one.
4. Borrow as much as you can from the sources you find to make your point ;). You might be able to get a lot about the relationship between Gainax and the fans from the interviews regarding DaR and EoE.

Should you find a fansite dedicated to Eva fanfiction, you should be able to link it as an example, until someone finds a better one. There is always the problem of copyright violation, but my opinion is that as long as they don't actually distribute copyrighted material like the anime, scripts or OSTs, we're pretty safe.--SidiLemine 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the help. Based on what you've said, I'll continue to gather information for the article and work on it offline as much as possible. My computer was just striken with a spyware attack a few days ago, so I'm somewhat limited in what I can do online until it is taken care of, but I will continue to do my best to research what I can. If there is anyone else who would like to assist on this project and help improve the EVA article, please let me know so that we can try and work together. Otherwise, I will start posting information as soon as I feel I've gathered an adequate amount that is of sufficient quality. --LainEverliving LainEverloving 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode guide?

I am openly surprised that there is no episode guide for Evangelion. Can someone please set up the basic templates, etc. for an episode guide? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

This is available at List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. The article is a complete mess right now, so replacing the episode list with one like the one at List of Serial Experiments Lain media, List of Excel Saga media or List of Planetes episodes shouldn't do any harm.--SidiLemine 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see...I meant more like an episode by episode specific guide for each one, but I could write that up based on the template in there....I'll get around to this.... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'll get on this...eventually. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding it in

Okay, the current "episode guide" lodged into the media list is a mess, so I am going to slap in a rough-cut episode guide which hopefully everyone else can tweak over a period of several days, thus bootstrapping our way to success.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure you want to separate the episode list into its own article? After all there is only one 26-episode season in the series, unlike multi-season shows.

Another example, soon to be featured if we don't find any problems with it: List of RahXephon media (Note that all episodes in that list now has its own article, but that is not likely to be the situation in some weeks from now, I thnk only about half of the episodes will have articles then.) --GunnarRene 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just setting up a basic gridwork; the current "episode" thing is just a list of episode titles. We'll play around with it (consequently I thought Eva actually had 2 seasons and it wasn't considered one big season, but that's not relevant: other series with 26 episodes like Serial Experiments Lain or Planetes appear to have a guide, and I'm just reverse engineering theirs and putting in Eva episode descriptions. This will take more than one day to set up so I'm obviously not going to get it right the first time, and others know more about this than me so if you think it can be written better please help me fix it up. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote up a basic new episode guide here: List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes, as the old one was "a complete mess", and was really just a list of names and didn't actually cover the episodes. Can anyone else please help out in fixing it up? In all modesty I'm not that great at this.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought the link didn't work for a minute, but apparently the "main" template is working fine now....problem must have been on my end....--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new episode guide page here: List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes. Please help out. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link someone can cite

I have no idea how to cite references, nor am I willing to learn. But here's link: http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html. It goes around the 3rd paragraph in "Influence", about how NGE is soft rather than hard science fiction. --Kanangra 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 05:10 25 January 2007 (GMT)

An award for NGE - once a Reception section's made.-Malkinann 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Manga's own article?

Considering that "Angelic Days," has its own page, should the official manga have it's own page? --Ganderman 16:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested before, I think. Just no one's gotten around to it. --Gwern (contribs) 18:54 3 February 2007 (GMT)

Since, "Girlfriend of Steel," has its own page here, should the official manga have its own page?--Ganderman 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested multiple times before. Have a look at the Table of Contents for this very Talk page and look for references to the manga for the previous discussions. Nique talk 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be seperate page for the manga itself but i can't find the manga anywhere. [User:jobywonkanobi] 9:14 May 10, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.26.4.146 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Most bookstores don't carry the manga of Evangelion anymore. I was shocked to see a Borders in Long Beach last December that had pretty much the entire run on its shelves, as that's the first time I've seen it available in a bookstore for at least a year. I was expecting the local Barnes & Noble to pick up vol. 10 and re-stock the older volumes, but I had to special-order vol. 10, and the only title I've seen on shelves lately is Angelic Days, which I haven't read any of and am undecided on. Sadamoto really shot himself in the foot with that enormous delay between vols. 9 and 10...has it ever been officially disclosed as to why that break was there? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive "citation needed" tags?

Sorry, total newbie to WikiPedia editing of any kind, but I felt I had to point out an issue that is bothering me a lot while trying to read this article.

From the "Fiction and Philosophy" section:

"In the series, even the mecha Evangelion units turn out not to be machines; Unit 01 moves without a pilot to protect Shinji, and it can fight without the aid of an external power source when it goes berserk.citation needed Eventually, it is learned that its external armor is actually to restrain its freedom and to bind it to the control of NERV, and that they are not just machines or animals, but have souls.citation needed"

I don't understand why someone has gone and added "citation needed" all over the place for these particular points (and many other points). These facts of the story are 100% verifiable by simply watching the episodes in which these facts are revealed to the viewer! Coming to the article as a reader and seeing "citation needed" over and over, I am left wondering why such interruptive links are placed everywhere in the text. If it's believed that someone should add a reference to say "see episode 13" after a certain piece of text, for example, perhaps that should be written here in the discussion page where your typical editor is going to see it, as opposed to after every sentence where John Q. Public is going to see it and get totally frustrated when he's just trying to read about this anime his friend told him about. --24.81.4.244 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In part the frustration is desired. All information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and cited, otherwise it's deletable. The tags are Wikipedians' ways of being honest with the public. Trimming a few won't hurt, but I'd just as soon leave them up. --Monocrat 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a clash of concepts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus, needs to build information from secondary sources. The anime or the manga itself are considered primary sources for our purposes. Please check this about reliable sources. If you are using the anime, or some manga chapter, the citation tag indicates you should supply at least the episode number and title, or the manga chapter and page. Evangelion has 26 episodes, plus some special remade ones and a few films, so you may be safe saying "just watch the anime", but imagine what would happen with Doraemon, with over 1,000 episodes, or Sazae-san, with 10,000 comic strips and 2,000 episodes. So, between putting always the episode number and name and never including them, I prefer the former. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Avemarian?

what is this? http://www.google.com/search?q=avemarian+nge — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.132.93 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Some sort of fan animation project, judging by the comments on Youtube and DeviantArt. --Gwern (contribs) 07:13 6 March 2007 (GMT)

It's a fan animation project using the characters from Maria-sama ga Miteru in the roles of characters from NGE (if that makes sense?). There are two parts to it - one as a parody of the opening credits to NGE, and the other as a parody of End of Evangelion. -Malkinann 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Original comic?

Reading through Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Unofficial Guide, I find that in 1994, the authors list "December: The comic serial begins in the manga digest Shonen Ace." But Yoshiyuki's manga is listed in the article as starting February 2005, which would seem to be a contradiction or gap of several months. Who's right? --Gwern (contribs) 04:31 10 March 2007 (GMT)

Never mind. I've found another and better source which says December as well. --Gwern (contribs) 06:01 21 March 2007 (GMT)

It was in the February 1995 issue of Shonen Ace. Do the math yourself: 1st tankôbon published in August 1995, composed of 6 "stages", one per month (Shonen Ace is a monthly mag). August is the 8th month. 8 - 6 = 2. February. Folken de Fanel 11:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the fact is that Yaushiro Takeda (one of Gainax's original employees, who was part of the Evangelion production team), and Fujie both claim the same exact thing: that to drum up interest, the manga started early, in December 1994. Perhaps it did not run consistently (is not the manga notorious for how long it's taken and how irregular the schedule is?); regardless, I have two different print sources, one of which should be unimpeachable, which say December 1994, and all you have is some unreliable mathematical reasoning. Policy is clear about which version should prevail... --Gwern (contribs) 17:21 21 March 2007 (GMT)

Ok, to clear the matter, after a bit of research on the web...Evangelion started serialization in the February 1995 issue of the Shonen Ace magazine, which was itself published on December 26, 1994 [3] (yes, magazines are very often published about a month before the actual period written on their cover). So we're both right, in fact. Perhaps it deserves a note in the article (if there's something about the manga). Folken de Fanel 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. Well, the Infobox people apparently haven't addressed the issue of whether original run is dated from actual publication date or the listed month. Incidentally, wouldn't it then have been published two months early? February -> January, January -> December. --Gwern (contribs) 20:42 21 March 2007 (GMT)

Footnotes

Several of the footnotes contain citations of the form "Napier 2002", but there's no elaboration elsewhere of what this refers to. Usually, you use such cites as an abbreviation for a source named in full in a bibliography elsewhere - so can we have the full citation of the source instead of these (incomplete) abbreviations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.16.168 (talk)

It's there. Look harder. --Gwern (contribs) 16:58 26 March 2007 (GMT)

OK, I see it now. In which case: seeing as I was reading #41, and that the full reference is way back in #3, a few kilometres of smallish text earlier, wouldn't it be a usability improvement if abbreviated references are anchored back to the full citation, or the footnote containing the original full cite? I've already been caught, I'm making this stand for the poor wretch who ends up at #57! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.105.246 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, you can't use references inside of references. It might make sense to move the full Napier reference and a few others used as often out of the ref tags entirely, though. --Gwern (contribs) 03:15 29 March 2007 (GMT)

But you can use the same reference with multiples footnotes. In that case, you create one ref, to which you give a name (<ref name= ****> blabla </ref>), and then you add this tag each time you want to refere to the "blabla" source: <ref name=****/>...Folken de Fanel 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, but if I adopt that style, it means dumping all the quotes and references into the text (which is problematical stylistically), or deleting them wholesale - which I am very loathe to do. --Gwern (contribs) 19:43 2 April 2007 (GMT)

Why not just include the multiply-referenced articles in the Further Reading section? The key issue is that it's difficult to find the article title if it's hidden amongst the other footnotes - usually you'd head straight for a bibliography. Although "Further Reading" isn't strictly a bibliography (it's a set of recommendations rather than an exhaustive listing of everything referenced in the article), I'd argue that if something's important enough to be referenced multiple times across the article and quoted fairly extensively then it deserves to be there, improving the list and solving the footnotes gripe without any need for tag-level tinkering. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.121.115 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not as though you have to have ALL named tags or ALL unnamed tags. I'm pretty sure you can have a mixture of the two within an article. Nique talk 21:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reading is for references which haven't been used yet, so that's not an option. You can mix named and unnamed tags, but you can't do <ref>"long quote." pg 40.<ref name="napier"/></ref>. --Gwern (contribs) 23:40 3 April 2007 (GMT)

Do you think you could do different sections for citations and references, a la El Greco? It's really confusing to have to hunt through reams of text to find a full reference. Sometimes it isn't even in the work's first citation. For example, Fujie 2004 is referenced in footnote 1, 19, 20, and 27 before its full citation is presented in footnote 33. It's understandable that this might be the case, as the article is being constructed in an ad hoc manner for the moment, so separating the cites and the references would keep things clear, even as the article's being built. Excellent, excellent work, by the way, Gwern. The article's really coming together! Geuiwogbil 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright. If so many people ask, I can hardly refuse. --Gwern (contribs) 06:03 13 April 2007 (GMT)

Thanks muchly! Geuiwogbil 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Change page to be about the franchise and not the TV series

So with the upcoming Rebuild of Evangelion tetralogy, there will soon at least 4 different versions of Evangelion (5 if you count ADV's live-action project); in order: the manga, the TV series, the Death/Rebirth/End combination, & the Rebuild. It seems to me that this article should perhaps be about the franchise in general, with the 4/5/6 whatever series in their own pages. The article sits uneasily as it is, containing both an overview of the TV series and the franchise, and the manga (which remember was the first piece of Eva media) doesn't even get an article and has a few mentions tucked away in this long entry. Any thoughts? --Gwern (contribs) 03:18 6 April 2007 (GMT)

I'd go along with that. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By the same logic, I question whether we should make separate articles for "Asuka Langley Soryu (TV series)" and "Asuka Langley Soryu (Rebuild)"--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we certainly can't decide that now - we have no idea whether Asuka will be a dramatically different character in the Rebuild as compared to the manga/TV/movie Asuka. If she is, then that might be a good idea; but unless I've missed a lot about the Rebuild, such information isn't yet available. --Gwern (contribs) 19:46 13 April 2007 (GMT)

Okay guys, come September we are going to see quite the literal "Rebirth" of Eva. I'm filling out the episode guide as fast as I can and we MORE OR LESS have the character, angel, eva unit, and glossary pages down. MIND YOU, I consider it **4** versions as Death/Rebirth/End is kind of tied into the original TV series, albeit with qualifier, they should be mentioned in the same breath. On top of this there is the manga (I don't read it but it exists), Rebuild, and hopefully Rebuild will spur interest in a live action movie series.......do you think we might eventually launch a wikiproject Evangelion of sorts? (Lord of the Rings was once just a subsection of Fantasy until someone launched wikiproject Middle-earth) Okay it might be something less formal than that...........at any rate, in a few days we need to make a "State of Evangelion on wikipedia" address to take stock of what is "Finished" (i.e. get the "Asuka" article to the point that we're just "maintaining" it when its vandalized or new changes are made), and what is nowhere near finished (the Timeline is a failure, and "Human Instrumentality Project" an apocalyptic disaster). We've got to get off our asses on this one. As for splitting articles....we'll do that if the articles become too long and cross that bridge when we get to it come September.---->Yes, we should rewrite this front page to be more about the franchise itself. Needs much work. Off Topic: I recently started an article for Lucy (Elfen Lied) and I'm running into trouble from the federales about bringing it up to code; could use some help. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to do the census just yet... it's kind of embarassing to have to say, "1. NGE manga: article does not exist. 2. ..." --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 13 April 2007 (GMT)

I honestly don't care about the NGE Manga. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got a rough draft at <sr>[[User:Gwern/Manga]]</sr> Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) for those who do care, if they want to review it or edit it. --Gwern (contribs) 03:56 15 April 2007 (GMT)

I honestly can't make a better one so okay. Is the ending of the manga any different? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? That's the thing about incomplete series. --Gwern (contribs) 04:08 15 April 2007 (GMT)

Wait, the manga was incomplete?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Was/is. "...it is still running and consists of 10 volumes - each comprised of several "stages" or chapters - out of a planned 12 volumes." --Gwern (contribs) 05:25 15 April 2007 (GMT)

It probably would've been complete by now, but as I understand it Sadamoto took a 2-year break (sabbatical?), so volume 10 has only been released in the USA in the last week. I know it will feature the conclusion of the battle with Armisael, but beyond that I don't know. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know this sounds stupid, but a goal of mine is to slowly get EVERY article on Eva up to speed by September 2007 when Rebuild comes out, if not earlier: the idea is that I seriously think that Rebuild will make a new explosion of interest in Eva, it will be "new" again, we'll work on Rebuild stuff (heck at 4 movies long it is about the same as a whole new Eva series) and then Rebuild causes renewed interest in Eva which kick-starts the stalled Live Action Movie Trilogy....which will literally be the next Star Wars/LOTR, what with Weta being involved and all. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 06:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an ambitious plan. I like it, but first I'm trying to render the EvaFics wiki obsolete and actually source the stuff we have now. Remember, slowly and surely wins the race! Better to make a solid beginning and foundation than rush through to meet the deadline. --Gwern (contribs) 20:05 15 April 2007 (GMT)

Actually that's exactly what I was planning as well; might go over for pointers. No one has updated that thing in over a year. I'll get to this in May. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the manga over the weekend, so I'll help with that article as much as I can. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your additions. I haven't been idle either: behold Neon Genesis Evangelion 2! It's not much or pretty, but it and the manga article fills out the last holes in the template.

Which brings up the next issue. While browsing EvaMonkey's forum looking for manga and Evangelions information, I saw mentioned something called Neon Genesis Evangelion Chronicles (or maybe just Evangelion Chronicles), which seems to be a 30 issue magazine series of Evangelion material[4]. Do any of you think it merits an article? --Gwern (contribs) 19:49 20 April 2007 (GMT)

I just found a link to these magazines a coupla days ago...if there was a website that had translated content or images from them, they'd be handy as references, but I haven't been able to find much aside from links selling them. I say keep them on the back burner for now, they don't merit their own articles. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

So I see no one has objected in the several months my suggestion has been up. In that case, I will start the split tonight. I don't know if I will be able to tidy up all loose ends, however. --Gwern (contribs) 02:17 3 September 2007 (GMT)

So what I've been doing is this: "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is just too generic a term. It can equally refer to the franchise and to the TV series, and this article was suffering badly as I and everybody else tried to make it into an article about both things. Which worked fine as long as there was much material. But it doesn't scale, so I've turned "Neon Genesis Evangelion" into a disambiguation page which links to Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV) which is for the TV series, obviously, and also to Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise which will be the home of all the material dealing with general stuff and derivatives and so on. After this, I guess I need to go around disambiguating links, but what needs to be done is a good thorough cleanup of both articles and a sorting out of a content I don't really have time for right this minute. --Gwern (contribs) 02:54 3 September 2007 (GMT)

It looks great so far, Gwern, but you might want to check out this discussion about the name of the article for the original anime. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference Nr. 15 - Factual mistake

In the first/second episodes Eva-01 overcomes Angel, not Shinji himself, who had lost control over Eva. The idea of author is correct - but even more than he wrote.217.198.224.13 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is used to support Shinji's lack of heroism rather than the control of Eva, so should be ok as far as it goes. However, you can add or replace with a better source if you like.

On a side note, I think Shinji didn't remember what happened, so it is left unexplained who was in charge. However, what you suggest is the most probable explanation. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

American version totally changed from Japanese version

I'm told that the American version totally changed the script, gave the male character more prominence, cut out many scenes, etc. Can you please add a sub-section that details the differences or the reasons or whatever. As a new watcher, I need to decide if I want to watch the original Japanese version or the completely redone Americanized one.--Sonjaaa 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You should watch subtitled versions just because the Japanese voice actors are often better, sometimes subtleties (those pesky suffixes -chan, -san, and -kun being a good case in point) are lost in translation, and dubs sometimes reword stuff to match mouthflapping better. But the English dubs aren't too bad, as I understand it. Certainly not nearly as bad as they could be. --Gwern (contribs) 22:56 8 June 2007 (GMT)

The English version of Neon Genesis Evangelion is almost exactly the same as the Japanese version, only in English. You seem to be describing a completely different series, Cardcaptor Sakura, where the dub was heavily edited and rewritten to give more prominence to a male main character. Philip Reuben 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration and symbolism

Has any of this article's editors given thought to trimming "Inspiration and symbolism"? I was giving it a look and it sorts of meanders to topics other than series and tries to give a psychological profile of the characters. I've tagged it with OR to see if it gets someone's attention.--Nohansen 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GA criteria not met

I have failed the article because, while the sheer number of references is impressive to say the least, it has several major problems that keep it from meeting the Good Article criteria. I will summarize my concerns below.

First off, the positive aspects: you have no problems with article stability, no grammatical errors leap out at me, you've found what appear to be several scholarly references, and you cover all the major points regarding the series that I would expect of a well-written anime article. Your images meet fair use policy, but I would like to see more context explaining exactly how the two in the "After the series" section are relevant. (They don't have any apparent connection to the article text they are next to.) This should be a relatively minor fix though.

The remaining criteria, however, have some issues. The article is good up until the section "After the series", but after that it starts falling apart and losing focus quite badly. Specifically, the bulleted list of religious references in the "Religion" section should be converted to prose and heavily trimmed, as at present it's much too in-depth for a main article and somewhat trivial besides. There's also a lot of synthesis and presumption throughout the entire "Inspiration and symbolism" section, which is especially heavy in the philosophy sub-section.

I realize that the religious and psychological references in NGE are a major part of it, and that removing them would damage our coverage of NGE, but at present those sections are the main thing keeping you from passing GA. So as a suggestion for how to fix these problems, the Inspiration and symbolism section should be turned into its own subarticle, and replaced with a shorter summary here. If that portion of the article were to be trimmed and focused, it would greatly improve the article's readability, reduce its length, and deal with the concerns about Original Research as well.

I apologize for the disappointment, but you are certainly getting close. As a WP:MANGA project member, I look forward to reading the article again once the Inspiration and symbolism sections have been cleaned up. --tjstrf talk 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to self for future writing

For future reference: we don't give enough emphasis to Sadamoto's role as character designer here. He apparently came up with quite a lot of distinctive elements and ideas. An excellent source to work from to flesh out mentions of Sadamoto is a 1998 interview translated by Animerica in Vol. 6, issue No. 8. Fortunately, the Eva ML provides a transcription for us here. We can also take advantage of a Der Mond interview (here). We might also want to work in a cute humorous picture Sadamoto drew comparing Nadia with Shinji (here, although needs more provenance). --Gwern (contribs) 22:59 8 June 2007 (GMT)

Thanks a bunch for the links, Gwern. I'm going to put the link to the Nadia/Shinji pic in Shinji's article; I've already put the links to the interviews with Sadamoto in his articles. Come to think about it, that pic would be an excellent addition to Shinji's article here, but I don't know how to make a picture for Wikipedia...could someone take care of that? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

Is it just me, or does the lead section of this article seem too vague in describing context yet too detailed in describing information that really isn't pertinent to a summary of NGE? Refer Wikipedia:Lead Section. I notice the lead section only briefly glosses over the genre of the series, fails to mention basic context such as location / time period etc, and then continues into a blow-by-blow account of the distribution of the anime. Couldn't this distribution/release information have it's own section? I just don't think it is relevant for a lead section if we are aiming for GA or FA standard. I am willing to re-edit the lead section to make it of a better standard. Cottie 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Death and Rebirth error

Death and Rebirth are frequently mistaken for being a single movie titled Death and Rebirth, but technically, it was a double feature, and they are two separate movies. The proof is that in the Japanese remastered boxset, Death is on its own disc and not paired with Rebirth. In fact, Rebirth is not in the boxset at all, as it is not its own movie but simply the first half of EoE. The main Evangelion article and the D&R article should be updated to reflect this fact, and the "Evangelion: Death and Rebirth" article should be renamed "Evangelion: Death". I'm a major fangeek, so I know stuff like this pretty well.

• Actually, "End of Evangelion" isn´t a single movie. There are three Features of Evangelion: Death, Air (Ep. 25´), magokoro wo kimi ni/ Apure heart four you/ sicirely yours (Ep. 26´). They have been released in 2 Double Features (with the first containing Death and an unfinished Version of Air, and the second containing Air and Ep. 26´) and later as a triple-feature (Revival).

So, how about a change? But I think it would confuse people. And in what way are those films on their own. Are they even extremely extended and reworked versions of the TV-Series last two episodes (as well as a recap-feature)? 87.174.244.180 (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)leroy

No, they were and are always released as movies and it would only confuse people to try to break it up. "Death and Rebirth" is itself just an artifact of the release history; there's really only one "Evangelion movie"; "End of Evangelion". You cannot possibly claim that these were meant as standalone episodes. What you're proposing would both confuse people more, and simply not reflect reality. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VVVVV. "Death and Rebirth" is a movie of its own. It was released under this exact title and there was no indication it should be splitted up, only that it had two parts. That Anno/Gainax later discarded the "Rebirth" part (because ep. 25' was in its complete form in "End of...") and only featured "Death" in recent DVD editions is an interesting fact to note, but it doesn't change the nature of the 1997 theatrical release of "Death and Rebirth". Just because "Rebirth" wasn't included in DVD releases doesn't mean it never existed.

The sames goes for "End of...", it's a single movie in two parts, that's all.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Folken. Yeah, Rebirth is sort of a prototype Episode 25' ; if you check, its not only shorter than 25', but the animation is of slightly roughly quality in several areas. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is it a soft-G "Neon Jenesis EvanJelion" or a hard-G "Neon Geneis Evangelion"? I was reading that Blue Gender is pronounced with a hard G "just like Neon Genesis Evangelion". If so a pronunciation guide is in order. Argel1200 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It already has a pronunciation guide, since katakana exist in order to phonetically transcribe foreign words. The characters "ヴァンゲリオン" in the nihongo template in the intro are Japanese for E-va-n-ge-li-o-n.

Are you serious? So basically everyone reading the article should know Japanese if they want to pronounce it correctly in English speaking circles? Argel1200 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pronounced with a hard g, by the way, though if you wanted to really be accurate you'd find out how the Greek word was said. --tjstrf talk 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would define "correct" as what fans commonly use at conventions, etc. and what's used in the English dub in the show. Is the 'g' in Genesis hard as well? Seems like this is something that should be in the article. Argel1200 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the other option would be adding an IPA pronunciation, I'd think this was the easier method. Kana is easier to learn than IPA is, and if you don't want to learn it you can always copy-paste the character into the search box to reach our article about the letter, which will tell you how to say it.

After looking it up on wiktionary, the correct Greek pronunciation for evangelion is also with a hard G. "Neon Genesis" is a translation into Greek of first two words in the Japanese title, Shin Seiki, by the way, so Japanese pronunciation doesn't come into play. --tjstrf talk 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I went and added a blurb in at the top mentioning the hard g pronunciation. Argel1200 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I went and added it back in. Without a reference at the top new readers will be thinking "soft g" while reading the article and then all of a sudden near the bottom (assuming they make it that far) they will learn they should have been thinking "hard g" all along. Given that the pronunciation is not what readers are likely to expect it seems relevant to let them know in a timely (i.e. early) and efficient manner. Plus, the pronunciation section is buried near the bottom and not listed in the TOC so it may be missed. The initial section in the article is a brief summary of the subject so why is including a brief synopsis on the pronunciation redundant? Should we remove the entire first section because it too is redundant? Additionally, placing it at the top makes it more consistent with other articles that may have pronunciation information at the top but not have a section discussing it in more detail later on (i.e. the existence of more in depth discussion should not force readers to have to hunt for the information). Argel1200 06:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it seems some sort of style guide/policy should be created to deal with this. Argel1200 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a note about the pronunciation in the introductory paragraph, I would prefer it to be the dictionary-style syllabalization (?) of the word and a one- or two-line note at the end of the paragraph that gives the correct pronunciation and directs to the section in the article instead of the current statement; as it is, it feels like it was just stuck in and is jarring to me to read. Also, I really don't think that most people would be upset or irritated to find out after reading the entire article that they might have been pronouncing it wrong unless they were irrationally thin-skinned. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't quite fit in but there is a template directly preceding it so I didn't think I should roll it in with that. Dictionary style would likely look more professional and fit in better. For new comers learning the correct pronunciation is imo important and worthy of more than just footnote status. And not every article will have a discussion on the pronunciation. For those that don't the logical place to put it is near the top. So to be consistent it should be at the top here. We just need to figure out how to make it fit in better. BTW, the pronunciation section at the bottom doesn't really go into how "Genesis" is pronounced -- is it a hard g? Argel1200 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the "Genesis" pronounced with a hard g, ever. The section on the translation appears to hint that using "Genesis" is sort of a word association rather than a direct translation, so I think saying it as it's commonly pronounced is correct. If I get time, I'll try to tinker with this tonight. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Evangelion" is pronounced in the course of the show, with the hard "G" (and with the second-to-last syllable given full weight, which it often isn't in English), "Genesis" never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.238.106.54 (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to propose adding the pronunciation the Infobox animanga template or the nihongo template? Argel1200 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at...the nihongo template is already used for the name of the series. I've moved the note on the pronunciation to the end of the introduction with a Wikilink that goes directly to the section on the translation. How does this look? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The location is a good compromise and I like the wording you chose! Thanks!!!! Argel1200 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Plotline article

Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion has been AfD'd. Comments/suggestions? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychology and psychoanalytic theory

In this section I find that the last sentence is incorrect in assuming that the world showed in episode 26 was a parody. It was a world shown to Shinji after he said that he does not exist in a world without Eva said in Episode 25 and further enforced in Episode 26 . He in fact is reading the script to the world after it is done showing and came to the realization that he could live in a world without Eva. I would like to edit this section and I promise a source but I want permission first due to the extent of work done on this article.Sun Li 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not enough is talked about the character's personality disorders. I have some training in psychiatry and Anno obviously used a lot of work by Freud, Jung and especially Kohut when portraying the characters. For example Asuka definately has clearcut Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the change in her mood during the series closely reflects the natural history of the disease described by Kohut (and others). Likewise Misato is Histrionic Personality disorder. Shinji probably has Avoidant Personality Disorder. Rei may have Schizoid personality disorder. If you read the DSM-IV criteria (which is just a checklist) or some research on the disorders (which explains the cause, course and outcome) then they slot in quite well. Logical paradox 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion Renewal

Can someone explain to me why nowhere in this article(or the related ones) does it mention Neon Genesis Evangelion Renewal, the DVD release with the remastered episodes and director's cut episodes? Question2 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another screenshot

File:NGEscreenshot04.jpg

Graffiti spray painted on Gainax Headquarters front wall: "Tenchuu" (Divine retribution).

Not exactly. Actually the word "Tenchuu" is in this screenshot below, not in the one above. Sicaral 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Xenogears

"The video game Xenogears (1998) bears a resemblance to Evangelion, though its creators (Xenogears co-creator/co-writer Soraya Saga and co-creator/director Tetsuya Takahashi in particular) have denied the speculated influences vehemently."

• I've searched quite a bit, and I can find no such denial of said influence. Unless this can be cited, it should be deleted. Frankly, that they would deny any influence is pretty angering, which is why I'd very much like to see the source. -Etafly 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people deny influence; to say you were inspired by something as popular as Eva seems kind of cheapening, I suppose. For example, the RahXephon guys claimed not to have known much about Eva until they'd already started animating or something like that - which is pretty amusing. --Gwern (contribs) 03:57 3 October 2007 (GMT)

• I always saw it as a series of homages rather than plagiarism, however, if any such inspiration is "vehemently denied", then it looks pretty grim. I've looked again and without any luck, so it's been removed. By the way, I just watched End of Eva. I hadn't noticed that the scene where Asuka surfaces from the sea with ship in hand is exactly the same as when Id emerges from the sand, Yygdrazil in hand. It's a pretty overt reference, and I can't see how anyone could possibly deny something so blatantly obvious. Again, if such an interview exists, I'd love nothing more than to read it.-Etafly 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FLY ME TO THE MOON

MISSING IN MUSIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The music could stand to be added in, but it's covered more thoroughly in its specific articles. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No talk of DVDs?

There are several boxsets out there and I think it'd be helpful (to me!) if someone could add info about those sets, how they are different, etc. Ham Pastrami 09:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a complex topic, which is why I've avoided it. --Gwern (contribs) 12:12 9 October 2007 (GMT)

That discussion would be better suited for the NGE media article, anyway. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some discussion is merited, even if only of the frenzies for the very earliest releases during airing (I think). --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 9 October 2007 (GMT)

Reception

Shouldn't there be a section on the reception for the series? it heads multiple best of anime lists. I mention this because the cowboy bebop section mentions these lists, so i believe it is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'm surprised that this hasn't been included already. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There already is a Reception section, although it isn't very full. I didn't add it, and I wasn't sure what lists to look at - Newtype is an obvious source, but I don't have access to any issues of Newtype so... --Gwern (contribs) 17:57 19 November 2007 (GMT)

Gah, I forgot that section had been added. *forehead smack* Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the reception section of this article needs to list more of the top lists it has one, and it isn't written in a format similar to other reception sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any Wagnerian influences?

I found this interesting discussion by the so called ‘The Imperialist’ on his/her theories on if NGE has any relation to Wagner, and puts up his/her assumptions, and more fully fledged theory later on. Search ‘On Wagner Evageeks’. What do you people think? I find this quite interesting, so is it possible if anybody would be willing to like make this theory more convincing with more ‘spine’ in it? I do have to admit that there are possibilities that NGE is based/influenced by Wagner, but there are a few points, that has to be mended, as he/she didn’t seem to manage to finish it. He/she also seems to have overlooked the fact that Wagner and Anno share the same birthday… --Fieldmarhshal Miyagi (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no particularly strong influences of that; yeah I saw that guys' rant on a messageboard is was laughably implausible. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

instrumentality

I have a subtitled version of NGE where the "Human Instrumentality Project" is given as "Human Complement Project" (might even have been supposed to be "Completement"--there's been at least one similar misspelling) in episode 2. I'd be curious to know what the original Japanese phrase was, and what other translation variants it could have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.35.101 (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) -Never mind. The answer's right there in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.36.76 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Murder trial

I'm not sure where to add this, so I'm archiving it here. Apparently NGE TV has been cited as justification for murder! As written in Mainichi Daily News, December 2, 2003, Tuesday: "Cartoon blamed for man's fatal beating on mom" (Page 8; Domestic news):

YAMAGATA -- A man accused of beating his mother to death with a baseball bat was influenced by a cartoon that made him believe humans were unnecessary beings, prosecutors told the Yamagata District Court on Monday.

In opening statements at the trial of Hiroyuki Tsuchida, 22, prosecutors claimed that watching the science-fiction cartoon Neon Genesis Evangelion had made Tsuchida believe a phrase in it that said, The ultimate conclusion of (human) evolution is ruin.

He also came to believe that humans were unnecessary beings who were destroying the world's environment, and in turn began to want to kill people, prosecutors said. They said the man fatally smashed his mother in the head with a baseball bat at about 2 p.m. on June 25, thinking that if he killed family members he would not hesitate when murdering others. A representative of Gainax, the firm involved in writing and producing the cartoon, said it did not think the content of the cartoon was related to the killing. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Dec. 2, 2003)

--Gwern (contribs) 02:02 27 March 2008 (GMT)

Looks like he was convicted: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2004-02-25/eva-killer-guilty --Gwern (contribs) 14:55 20 February 2010 (GMT)

"A representative of Gainax, the firm involved in writing and producing the cartoon, said it did not think the content of the cartoon was related to the killing."

well if you think of it in a sense it is not related to killing more or less trying to stop a worse fate for humanity by making it a singular Hyperbeing however then again this quote from the representative is arguable. 69.86.55.242 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

references and footnotes

While I appreciate the number and detail of the references and footnotes, many of them need improving. Not the references themselves, but the way they are presented. For example "pg 419 of Napier 2002" should really be a full {{cite book}} template. Theres a lot of examples like that, most of which are for the same book! I'm looking at the article and have no idea what this book is, when I should be able to click the reference and see the book on Amazon. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That link is referring to the book that's in the bulleted links below the numbered refs. I agree that those refs are clunky...the book link should be moved into the numbered refs and reformatted. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Neon Genesis Evangelion Logo.PNG

The image File:Neon Genesis Evangelion Logo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Secondimpact.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues resolved. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the manga/movies from the info box

NGE has separate main article, manga and movie pages, so do those sections of the info box need to stay there? AndrewTJ31 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The info on the movies, I think, should stay since they're technically anime. The info for the manga can be removed if it's already covered in the manga article's infobox. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Split out manga?

I think it'd be a good idea to split out the manga part. It's a separate work, both artistically and in terms of when and by whom it's being made, from the TV series (which this page is ostensibly about - it's not supposed to be a list of all EVA media). It just makes sense (and would save me from embarrassing mistakes :) It may not be all that long of an article, but I think it just needs a little love when it is split out and it'll be fine. --Gwern (contribs) 17:52 13 December 2006 (GMT)

that makes no sense....Bread Ninja (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Past awards in need of sourcing.

I recently read about the shut down of GeoCities and visited some old NGE sites, discovering their archived news held contemporary updates on NGE events. The following are some notes which may be of use in updating this article, if proper sources can be found:

1. Neon Genesis Evangelion was nominated (but lost to Princess Mononoke) the 39th Japanese Grammy Awards for animation music.
2. Neon Genesis Evangelion won the 1997 multi-media cultural award for animation. The award night is scheduled for February 2, 1998 at the New Tokyo National Theater. There will be an Evangelion Exhibition. Entrance is free.
3. The anime Neon Genesis Evangelion has received three awards in the 1997 Animation Festival in Kobe for Interactive Software Category (Neon Genesis Evangelion Game: Girl of Steel), Popularity Category (Neon Genesis Death & Rebirth/ The End of Evangelion) and the Soundtrack Category

And besides other trivia regarding late 90s NGE merchandise (NGE laptops, pocket organizers, screen savers, a fleeting collectible card game, etc), I found this one little tidbit about Anno personally, so it might be useful. Anno, according to rumor, liked UCC COFFEE and allowed that company to produce 6 special cans of UCC COFFEE bearing the pictures of six of the characters from Evangelion. The special edition coffee cans were released July 1, 1997. I don't know. That could be interesting addition concerning how the production staff viewed the merchandising. If only we can find sources...--Cast (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cels

Not entirely sure where this would go either, or whether Answerman is considered a RS (although ANN in general is, dunno about columns), but from http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/answerman/2009-09-11 :

"There's also the issue of certain cels from specific shows being extremely rare - Evangelion, for example. Gainax went out of their way to make sure that cels from the original series were never sold to the public, and were only given to employees and their families as gifts. So if you ever see one for sale, it's either a fake, or it's gonna cost you your first-born child."

--Gwern (contribs) 16:20 11 September 2009 (GMT)

i don't think we need every piece of information...this isn't a news source.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Manga and anime of nge

i disagree with spliting the article of nge anime and manga. of course they would have different people owrking on the manga then on the anime but it still retains to the series. Also the manga has very low information and has practically the same information the anime has but a little more detailed.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Very low information? Practically the same? Where would the bibliography go, the publishing history, the character differences, the list of chapters/plot summary (have you seen that article?) - where would all that go? If the manga article makes sense to merge in, every Eva article makes sense to merge in. --Gwern (contribs) 23:25 4 September 2009 (GMT)

EXACTLY! now your thinking like a true contributor. But of course not everything should merge. just most of the articles out there. Like neon genesis evangelion spin offs and doujinshi and spin off games that hold no real importance to the series (Ayanami Raising Project • Shinji Ikari Raising Project • Iron Maiden (2nd) • Neon Genesis Evangelion • Shinji and Good Friends • Evangelion 2 • Battle Orchestra) should be removed and briefly mentioned. The movie should have it's own article since it holds nobility, but the manga deserves to be in the anime.

anyways publishing history? bibliography? it's nothing but simple wording. bibliography is just another way saying list of volumes without chapters. publishing history and critical success? basically reception with trivial information. these articles look like work of a fan. Some of the information is unnecessary. Look at the Rozen Maiden article and the Blood+ article. they are written in summary and don't take up most of the space over one plot or inspiration. Also we should remove the neon genesis evangelion logo and add the DVD cover OR the manga first volume. Highly suggest manga first volume, since it was the first promotional item that released from the series (if we agree to merge the articles).

Now let's focus on the big problems, the anime article needs a lot of clean up. too much trivial information. We should re-summaries/delete Origin and production,Inspiration and symbolism, Psychology and psychoanalytic theory, Religion, Fiction and philosophy, Translation notes on the title, Further reading. I highly suggest we delete Further reading, Religion, and inspiration and symbolism and references to other media. the article itself is to give a brief explanation about the series (which has turned into separate articles), it's not suppose to explain every little theory, assumption and notes unless it affects the series itself. end of evangelion description is far too long. there's already a separate article so there's no need for a summary as long as the plot.

And there's on other thing.....time line of NGE? what is that suppose to be? just an article with a time line? that shouldn't even exist in Wikipedia. Every summary, plot, description should be revised and summarized to 200-500 words.

this is what an article of anime/manga series should look like

-Series description name, when it was serialized, small description of the series.

-Plot

• Setting
• story

-characters

• small description of the main characters

-Production

• small description of the production and inspiration

-other media

• anime

• manga (if available)

• spin off, side stories (if available)

• games (if available)

• soundtrack

• Books

• remakes (if there are remakes)

-Reception

• small description of reception, no long descriptions that take too much space

now for the side articles. Side articles are to support the main article or some subjects in the main article.

-list of 'title' chapters

an article showing the list of volumes and chapters

-list of 'title' episodes

an article showing the list of episodes (this already seems to be done so no worries here)

-list of 'title' characters

not really important since it is already made)

-Movie articles

article about a movie based off the main series. If the movie hit a certain reception and had obtain nobility, then it may be allowed to exist as a separate article but with a small decription added in the main article (under 'other media')

Any other article out there should not exist. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news source and that we should avoid this kind of work. NGE are one of the worst articles ever made in Wikipedia. If this was 'wikia' then it would have been alright, but Wikipedia is much more strict.so please try to clean everything up

Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that plot summaries should not be the bulk of the article, and that unsourced claims should be deleted on sight (and some sections like "psychology" and the like are particularly problematic).

However I don't understand why we should limit the "production" and "reception" sections. The articles shouldn't be whole recaps of TV shows, but shouldn't be a mere database either, empty of any (properly sourced) commentary. These commentaries (assuming they're based more on the show itself than on the plot) are the strength of WP and they should be expanded instead of reduced.

A finale note on using the manga cover to illustrate the article: it's indeed the first material released, but the manga is not the most notable/important/known element of the franchise; the anime is. Most sources refer to the anime rather than the manga, and the fact that the manga wasn't published until several years after the end of the anime in many western countries shows, in my opinion, that it is a minor promotional item that shouldn't be given undue weight in the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason because an anime image should be used in the infobox is because it's the primary media. A suitable image could be the first DVD or VHS released for the series.Tintor2 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

is there a VHS? but there's much more to this than just the imageBread Ninja (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As for Folken de Fanel I'm not saying we should limit production itself, I'm saying we should limit the explanations. We can have as much information on those but to keep them as brief as possible as well. We don't need overwhelming details. AS for the manga, it was published before the anime though it counts as the adaptation and serialized in japan, and just because it wasn't published in western countries right away does not mean that the manga should be mentioned at all. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of joining all the articles into one the manga definitely belongs in this article. In fact this shouldn't even be called NGE (anime), it should just be called NGE. But there are so many articles about nge games and nge spin off mangas.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the manga doesn't belong in the article, I'm saying it shouldn't be used as the illustration at the top of the article because the anime is more important and more well known. And yes, it is very important for the notability to take into account the fact that the manga, in many western countries, was published years after the anime, because it means readers of WP are most likely refering to the anime rather than the manga when they say "Evangelion". And it's the same for all the sources, which are more focused on the anime rather than the manga. And this is factual.

I just find it inappropriate to use a manga cover to illustrate an article which core subject will always remain the anime, whether the manga is joined to it or not.

Concerning the production explanations, if they are correctly sourced they have to stay. They are the core of an article about a work of fiction. If we don't explain why/how a work of fiction came to be, or how it was received by the audience, then there's no article at all. These sections certainly aren't going to be limited. However sections like "psychology" are not very usefull and above all are badly sourced: it's that kind of content that should be kept to a minimum.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

the main idea is to remove the (anime) and just leave it as Neon genesis evangelion. and possibly added with (series).Bread Ninja (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I obviously think this is an unusually terrible proposal; Bread Ninja, I realize you're a newbie, but doesn't even a new user realize that you don't conduct the same conversation in multiple places? If you are going to copy-paste large texts, why put this stuff on both Talk:NGE and my own talk page? For my reply to the enormous slab of text above, see User Talk:Gwern#Manga and anime of nge... --Gwern (contribs) 16:29 14 September 2009 (GMT)

dont change the subject. I only put it here so others could discuss about it. SO yeah. there's no rule against it. it's not terrible. you just going by WP:ILIKEIT, you only disagree but when it comes to actual reason, you stop talking.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not changing the subject. I can object to both your plan and your wikiquette in how you're going about proposing it - I'm rather versatile that way. Let's try to keep the discussion in one place so people can actually follow it.

As for your invocation of ILIKEIT... that applies you (let's merge articles because ILIKEIT better that way!). I've listed in various places multiple arguments, and you few to none. It's nice that you're learning the standard deletionist arguments, but accusing me of ILIKEIT when that's manifestly not the case strikes me as rather ad hominem. --Gwern (contribs) 16:07 15 September 2009 (GMT)

are you here to argue or discuss? stop targeting me, you know the real problem. i saw your argument, the only argument you have is that there is too much info. again, some of the information is unnecessary and trivial. like the inspiration and philosophy. most of that is unnecessary. And yes it's obvious you want it like that better than what we suggested. everyone else seems to suggested and you seem to be the only one to deny.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You aren't even reading what I'm writing, are you? It's quite exasperating to try to argue or discuss things with such people.

"I've pointed out, here and elsewhere, several reasons that they are best separate; they are distinct works by different people (did Sadamoto write or storyboard Eva TV or the movies? NO, HE DID NOT. He was character designer, naught else.), they are most maintainable in this format, they both satisfy even the most stringent notability requirements (not every anime spawns a multi-billion dollar franchise; not every manga sells multiple millions over its decade or so run), etc. The most you can muster is 'the manga deserves to be in the anime'."

That's at least 4 distinct arguments right there. 'only argument' indeed!

And as for 'everyone else', I'd like to see this comprehensive count or census of yours. I see your closest ally in terms of viewpoint outright saying "That's it. I'm not going to waste my time any longer with you, Bread Ninja." I see Malkinnan disagreeing often with you and doing actual research to back it up. I see Tintor2 being largely neutral and offering helpful comments. I see Dandy Sephy, your other viewpoint-alley busy with other things. There are also Willbyr and V, who haven't commented but who I know from past experience would largely disagree with you. (And of course, there's me.) By my count, that makes 2 for you (I'll be generous and give you both Folken & Dandy), 1 neutral, and 3 against. --Gwern (contribs) 14:38 18 September 2009 (GMT)

what does different people have to do with anything at all? there are others in the other page who discussed this, also the manga section does not hold enough notable references. let's not talk about "everyone else", distinct work from different people but the same story can be still be placed in here. can you find WP that says you cant do that? again, your not trying to talk about this, your just pointing out what's happening around. no one here understands why.

i am most definitely tired of different interpretations of notability requirements, especially when someone hardly explains why, i checked the WP, it doesn't mention much of how many sites there should be. and it does deserve to be within the anime. again, there are a dozen articles out there about NGE that aren't notable. and what bugs me about NGE article is that you all are the only disagree, i have been many other articles where my point was valid. is that you don't argue like a Wikipedian, you argue like some kind of person who cant stick to the subject. I'm not the subject.

again, two different people who have made the anime and manga, doesn't mean anything and why should it? we seen hundreds of anime who have had manga adaptations who were made by different people. anime creators don't always make the manga of the same series. in fact mangakas would ask the one who created the anime to ask permission to create the manga series, and sometimes the anime creators would ask a certain mangaka to make a manga (we seen that with angelic days). I don't see how this is any different to keep them separated. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, I would suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. The practical consensus on WP:ANIME/REQUEST is that two reviews are all that's needed for an article to pass the general notability guidelines. The anime and the manga both pass the GNGs, so I believe we should not merge them. --Malkinann (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

BN: "What does different people have anything to do with anything at all"? Gee, I dunno, it was you who brought up 'everyone else' - you explain the relevance. You have made yourself the subject, and ironically, even as you complain about being made the subject you go right on saying things like "and what bugs me about NGE article is that you all are the only disagree, i have been many other articles where my point was valid."

As for same story, no, they're different stories. Asuka doesn't even look the same or have the same history; Kaworu is a sadistic nihilistic sonuvabitch in the manga, whereas in the TV series he's Jesus; Kaji has a completely new backstory which turns him into a traitorous coward instead of a roguish hero; and so on.

I'd address your last paragraph, but the syntax is so mangled I can't really figure out what you're saying. (What does Angelic Days have to do with anything? As an example, it doesn't support your desire to merge the TV and manga.)

Also, in the future, kindly refrain from removing parts of my comments. It's acceptable on Wikipedia to reformat another's comments (where that doesn't affect the meaning) or spellcheck'em, but not to delete wholesale. --Gwern (contribs) 15:15 19 September 2009 (GMT)

I disagree entirely with merging information on the manga into the anime article, Wikipedia is not paper. The manga story is distinct from the anime in many points, and cannot be considered within the canon of the anime series. the writers are different after all. Likewise, the Rebuild films cannot be merged into the Neon Genesis article - they don't even share the same title - and this manga cannot be merged simply because it does. --Southen (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Southen, you are making absolutely no sense, WP:NOTPAPER isnt helping the discussion, like i said before there are somethings in this article that are trivial. Malkinann, we don't always have to keep them into separate articles.As for gwern, I only delete it when it's something that isn't about the discussion (which you brought up, so don't say i did). again, not everything has to be kept separate. There isn't a rule against merging, just the minimal requirements to spin them out of the article. there are only slightly differences between manga and anime but the overall plot and the characters are the same. whether you think they are different is really more of opinion. I'm merely saying the manga adaptations usually have some differences, but overall, have the same plot. When someone creates a manga adaptation (again), they would either ask the anime creator permission to make one OR the creator will ask the person to create a manga adaptation (we have seen this before with Angelic days). as for doujinshi, it's really nothing important, though wiki highly discourages doujinshi and spin off manga articles. again not everything should be kept separate just because it meets the minimal requirements.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The MOS states:

In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:
1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or
2. The article becomes too large.

And SPLIT states:

There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split. A guideline for article size is:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page.

The current article has 53k readable prose and adding the manga would raise it to 59k readable prose witch takes it up near the "probably should be divided" size. This means that strong reasons why the manga article to not exist need to be raised.--AndrewTJ31 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

those points are valid in general, but when you try to use it with NGE article, it didn't really make sense. Again, this article needs work as well before merging. both hold the same characteristics. same plot and same characters. i dont see how that one point was valid. you just cant compare the KB's together, there are other methods to merging them. like removing some trivial infomratin in this article, or removing unsourced information, re-summarizing and then merge them together, it's not difficult.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We are all saying that it would be better to keep them seperate, and they do both fulfill the general notability guideline to have seperate articles. Why should they be merged? --Malkinann (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

they hold the same information as the anime article. same plot, same everything. the only thing is added for some strange reason is bibliography is added which isnt much and may be challenged. by merging it, the only thing we would have left is the critical success, the characters ection is pointless since they already explain those areas in the list of character section. i'm stil skeptical on the doujinshi and spin off to have there own article, wiki highly discourages it.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. We've told you before the plot and characters have their differences, and they are discussed on the manga page. It's appropriate for differences in character to be discussed both on the manga page and on the page for the character. The critical success of the Evangelion manga is enough for the Evangelion manga to have its own article, per the general notability guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

critical success is the only thing that's different though. there hardly is any difference. The differences arent that big, the plot is still the same, only minor differences occur but don't affect the plot It's not really appropriate to discuss differences from the manga has to the anime in the manga Article, in fact i remember another argument in a different article explaining listing differences of manga and anime are to be avoided. but whatever you sayBread Ninja (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

all we can do is simply move the infobox and critical success to the anime. it would remove all the repeated information.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the differences between the manga and anime is a perfectly valid option in articles, as is keeping articles separate because they both meet the general notability guideline. Why would it make the anime article so much better to discuss the manga as well? --Malkinann (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

usually the articles mention other versions of the series in the same article, and usually if it's basically the same story then you would list the reception or critical success of the other version in the main article, rather than talking about minor differences. minor differences are too small to count. for example, rozen maiden has a huge difference between the anime and manga, the manga only had 7 volumes while the anime had 3 seasons, same as Cardcaptor, cardcaptor only had 9 cards in the manga while the anime revealed over 50. these ones have incredibly huge differences but as for NGE they both have the same story and the plot hasn't changed enoguh to notice major difference, another example is bleach, minor differences like giving extra explanations to the character's past in the anime than the manga yet still the same story. but listing the differences that is already in other sections (like character sections) is completely pointless to put in the main article unless it had to do with the plot, and that's only if it affected the plot greatly. it would talk about other canon versions of the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, the plot and characters are a lot different in the manga. We're not talking about a manga version of the anime, it has been totally re-worked and is only similar in the overall setting and characters. I don't think merging the manga into the anime article would be appropriate. Both articles pass GNG and I'm sure this manga article could even be expanded beyond where it is now. I don't see a compelling reason to merge them. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

yes we are talkinga bout the manga version of the anime.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)