Talk:List of Elfen Lied episodes

Missing scene

i didn't know they took out a scene, was it seen on any of the elfen lied DVDs?

What are you talking about?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they ever said her head injury in episode one was the cause of the split personalities. --Kraftlos 08:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

She was acting like she had amnesia before she really understood that Kouta and Yuka were people she knew as a kid. A lot of official summaries of the show say "she has amnesia from a head injury", though as I DO point out....over time I think she PHYSICALLY recovers but mentally "Nyu" becomes a psychological crutch. I increasingly suspect this happened in episode 6. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Elfen Lied (anime)

I am just wondering...shouldn't we rename this article to Elfen Lied (anime)?? So that the info can be structured better. --Da Vynci (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a list of the episodes, not an article about the anime, which is covered in Elfen Lied. It is appropriately structured as an episode list and will remain as is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Then why it has such a large opening paragraph? Look, if it is a list, make it actually look like a list, keep the list here then move everything else back to the main Elfen Lied article. Why the info about Lilium is here? Why the DVD info are here? Why on earth this LIST talks about the music style of the theme song??? and the composer? licensing information? (o_O) If this is just a list, all those info should all be in the main Elfen Lied article. dude...what happened? why this article has become such a chaos? --Da Vynci (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is (almost entirely) due to User:Sephiroth BCR who started to improve episode lists by including all such information which you yourself have stated: DVD releases, license info, theme songs, etc. Thanks to him, the project has some 30 episode FLs, and almost all of them follow this same format because he was the one that streamlined the basis (not to mention that of those 30 or so lists, he's worked on all but a few of them). So don't blame us, for we are merely following the convention that's been laid out since September 2007 (or so). Take it up with Sephiroth BCR if you believe he acted wrongly by including too much info in a list article. Btw, before him, anime-episode FLs looked something like List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes or List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes (when it was an FL). Further, since I was here way back when {{Japanese episode list}} was first instituted in June 2006, I can tell you that a convention started where episode lists were split off from the main articles, but were very bleak in their appearance; List of Ouran High School Host Club episodes looks pretty much how it did from back then, and was how pretty much all anime-episode list articles looked. If we wanted to, I suppose we could have split off the lists into separate (anime) articles, like you suggested above with Elfen Lied (anime), but since we didn't go down that route, we are now in our current state where there is quite a bit more information in list articles than may seem (at first) needed. This is (largely) due to User:Ned Scott who created {{Japanese episode list}} and was the forerunner in the formation of the early episode list articles, so if you want a person to point to, he'd be the one.

PS: Back in 2006, when anime-episode lists were still pretty much just that (a list of episodes, and a one-sentence lead, no refs, and maybe an EL if you were lucky), I created Strawberry Panic (anime) which incorporated the episode list and some of the other things you might expect in an anime article (though I was still inexperienced back then, so it's missing a lot of basic stuff). As such, I don't see any reason why (anime) articles can't be created even today. I think the main reason more weren't created back then was because, quite frankly, they were harder and took a comparatively longer time than just copy/pasting a list and writing a one-sentence lead, which (as I've said) is how anime-episode articles looked in the beginning. Even today we know it's more work, so we settle with a huge lead section, a well-done list, a bunch of refs, and maybe some ELs. We don't have to worry about in-depth development, or production sections, or even reception because an episode list article doesn't require such things to get promoted up to FL, and since writing FLs is much easier than writing and promoting articles to GA or FA status, the FL road was opted, or at least that's how I see it.--十八 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, you do realize that the same convention is heavily supported in TV episode lists, which are done by more than just Sephiroth. It isn't just "oh well, Seph started it" but the fact is FL is a much tougher process than it was before. None of those old lists would survive an FLR and none would pass FL now. Episode lists are just that, episode lists. The leads specifically address points related to those episodes and the current format was refined through FLC responses and peer review feedback. Seph wasn't alone in the "revolution." Don't forget, the format was validated and approved through the 30 some FL noms. If the leads were too long, had irrelevant data, etc, then they wouldn't have passed. Many other FLs from the last few years, not just episode lists, are required to have proper leads, not just some one line "here is x" with no context. I personally agree with the change to anime episode lists, as they are much higher quality than the old style ones. No moving off topic, but as for writing anime articles, yu know very well why they are not created: because per our MoS there is absolutely no reason to have separate manga and anime articles unless they are radically different. Elfen Lied's differences are easily covered in the main article. For the last point, well, I'm not going to argue with you there since our project having some 30+ FLs, but only 4 FAs (soon to be 3)? We do have 31 GAs, however, including series and character articles, neither of which is particularly easy. I am a little insulted by the implication that ep lists are super easy and that the current format is somehow a "settlement" when it isn't. production, reception, etc goes in the MAIN article, or should. Don't blame the format for editors not dealing with main articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, that's the way I see how it's evolved over the past two years. Seph may have not been the only one, but he was still the forerunner in overhauling the anime episode lists; I know, since I saw him do it time, and time, again, even before he was an admin. And I didn't mean to say that FLs are super easy, but compared to GAs and FAs (as I said above) they are comparatively easy (or else we wouldn't have so many FLs promoted in a very short time). I still remember when Seph was just starting and he was getting lists promoted at a very fast pace, and it made me wonder (wow, was getting lists up to FL really this easy?).

And I'll make myself clearer. (I believe...) That we utilize the episode list more often than the (anime) article is because they are easier. It's not anything like "because per our MoS there is absolutely no reason to have separate manga and anime articles unless they are radically different" because that is just an excuse, especially when any MOS is meant to be used as a guideline, not an absolute, and if the guideline stops you from doing something useful in an article, then you don't follow it. Guidelines are good in debates and for consistency, but not all articles follow them, and those same articles can get promoted to GA or FA or FL status. As I said, I see no reason why (anime) articles can't exist, but I can obviously why they are generally not made, as recommended by our MOS, but you must remember that it is only a recommendation, nothing more, or else it would be a policy. Plus, how many new editors even generally look or even follow our (or many other) MOS guidlines?--十八 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a good guideline and not an excuse. Having two articles on the same series is just plain silly and a waste of time and resources. If the series are fundamentally the same, a single article is all that is needed. An dit may just be "recommended" but try to take an article to FA that does not follow it. It will quickly be bashed for not following the established and consensus approved guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would only be bashed if and only if it did not satisfy the FA guidelines. No need to rehaul an article that may already be at FA status just so it can look like every other similar article, you know? It's not that I disagree with you, I too think consolidation into a main article is the right way to go, and the least branch articles the better, I'm just saying that it may not always be the case, as it's not always a black/white issue. Even {{style-guideline}} reminds us of this: "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article."--十八 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the requirements for FA is that it comply with the relevant style guideline for that article. But in either case, I think we've gone way off topic. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we abuse how easy it is to create lists of episodes. Just take a look at List of FLCL episodes. While the FLCL article is barely B-class, we have a Furi Kuri episodes FL. That's how easy it is. That list shouldn't even exist: the main article is too short and the series is only six episodes long.

And I agree with Da Vynci. This should be an article on the Elfen Lied TV series, no matter what WP:MOS-AM recommends.--Nohansen (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't and it has already been discussed ad nauseum. This is an episode list, not an article on the anime. The anime article was already agreed to be unnecessary and an unjustified violation of the MoS. As for FLCL, normally yes, a six episode series shouldn't have a break out of the episode list. However, the FLCL list is a featured list and I think it would be far too long to put in the main article. Besides, if you don't like FLCL's main article being a start class article, why not fix it instead of complaining that someone took the episode list to featured class. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The MoS is a guideline, a recommendation. You can't "violate" a recommendation.--Nohansen (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, no one would have to follow any of the Wikipedia MoS "recommendations." Yes, you can violate the MoS and doing so without a valid reason will keep an article from making FA (and GA depending on the reviewer). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But remember what says right at the top of every MoS: "It is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed, but it can have exceptions; use common sense when applying it." We don't have to follow the MoS to the letter.

Until a month ago, editors were placing the "reception" section before the "media" section because that's the way it was ordered in the MoS... that is, until Juhachi came and "fixed" it. Right now, WP:MOS-AM doesn't provide a "Design" section in the article layout, but that doesn't mean that articles that have a "Design" section are violating the MoS. And while the animanga MoS asks for plot section to "avoid excessive details of twists and turns in the story", articles on anime films must describe the whole story, twists and turns included.

So again, it is silly to follow the MoS to the letter; that's why we must "use common sense when applying it".--Nohansen (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was fixed by consensus. There would be a design section of people had actually finished the discussion on adding it and a themes section, but only a draft for themes was ever submitted. But anyway, enough of this. It isn't the right forum to argue, though now seeing how much you seem to hate the MoS, I understand earlier discussions with you in a new light. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do you read "hate" in what I wrote? I may not love the MoS, but I certainly do not "hate" it. I just think my view of the MoS is different from yours. I see it as advisory in nature, while you see it as a set of rules. That's all.--Nohansen (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I read hate in your actions. You regularly ignore it and often block any attempts to fix "your" articles to follow it. See what happened this evening on Honey and Clover. I fully expect I'll wake up in the morning to find you have undone it again, as well as my corrections toX (manga). As Kraftlos, the guideline is not just an "advisory", it is, for the most part a set of guidelines and they are binding, with only rare exceptions in very special cases. If guidelines were not binding, people would be able to put whatever non-reliable sources they want and flood articles with links to ever fansite every made. But, those guidelines are also binding, so we remove non-RS and bad links. In the same vein, the MoS' are binding and articles that do not follow them and do not have project consensus for being on of the rare exceptions will be cleaned up and fixed to follow it. There is no point in even having a MoS if people will just ignore it because "oh well, I don't like that part," which seems to be what you've been doing of late. Part of being in the project is being willing to follow consensus. The MoS was determined by consensus. Your ignoring the parts you don't agree with causes problems for the other editors in the project when they go to clean up other articles or when they go to clean up one of "your" articles because you refuse to accept current consensus and will argue that your way is better purely because you like it more. If we could all just make articles however we wanted, again, we wouldn't have MoS' at all. We'd have no guidelines, no policies, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the MoS agreed apon by the Wikiproject in question is binding, the whole point of an exception is that it would be rare. If there are lot's of exceptions for no good reason, then there wouldn't be any purpose to a MoS. In any media, Manual of Style is crucial to making sure all the information is 1. Easy to read 2. Easy to access and 3. Asthetically uniform. You might want to look up what sort of "occasional exceptions" have been made in the past, before deciding that what you want to do is a justifiable exception; I assure you that list is probably quite short.

The Elfen Lied pages are moving toward FEWER pages, not more pages. You may not realize this, but the main article used to focus solely on the anime, we are taking painstaking efforts to balance the article between manga and anime plot, and there has been a lot of trouble with unsourced material. To be quite honest, there really isn't enough information out there to justify an anime page, nor would that be in keeping with the MoS to have a separate page. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I realize the "main article used to focus solely on the anime", I'm the one who brought it up in the first place. But something confuses me: while half of the people who opposed the split said an article solely on the manga would be too short for lack of information, you say an article on the TV series wouldn't be possible for the same reasons. How is that? Most of the info in the current revision of the article ("Style and themes", "Production", "Reception") is only related to the anime. Even the "Anime" sub-section of "Media" is larger than the sub-section on the manga.

I don't get how you can say "there really isn't enough information out there to justify an anime page".--Nohansen (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I remember that conversation. There isn't enough information to make independant pages about the Manga or the Anime, that's why the MoS (wikipedia and wikiproject anime) with the original work as the focus of the main article because most likely there are a lot of similarities between the two and all derrivations of the original can be covered in a single article.

I'm not just saying this because I don't think it can be done, I'm finding from personal experience that there isn't a lot of review content in English that was published by reliable sources. I've been pulling magazines that reviewed Elfen Lied from my local library and so far I've only found sparse reviews. It might be easier if we had access to Japanese magazines, but my Japanese is really bad and my libraries probably don't have them. And since there is not official English translation of the manga, we're stuck with primary citations only directly from the manga itself. It would be far better to follow the MoS and have one strong article that discusses both works in a "big picture" sense rather than several weaker articles that are each narrowly tailored to their specific medium. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think I opened a Pandora's box. Ok, fair enough...let's just let it the way it is then. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cousins

Was there a question that that Khota and Yuka were cousins? Because I thought that was pretty clear. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the purpose of that note either (that's why I removed it). Seemed kinda silly to have a note saying it said they were cousins. Maybe before the series was licensed there was some questioning of the translation that necessitated the note, but I don't think its an issue now is it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

German titles - English translation

As a German native Speaker, I have a few corrections for the Translations of the German titles into the literally English translation. Some of them don't look really accurate. I almost never edit anything on Wikipedia, that's why I write this here and not with the edit function. I don't want to do anything wrong.

Episodes:

01 - Begegnung - encounter

03 - Im Innersten - (Would literally mean "deep down" or "at bottom", but is figuratively seen correct translated.)

04 - Aufeinandertreffen - clash

10.5 - Regenschauer - shower

11 - Vermischung - blending

The rest is fine though. I actually could explain detailed why the originally written words are inappropriate. But I will only take this effort if necessary. Besides that I can rely on good experience in English and I verified all the translated titles through a dictionary.

I hope I could help. - B.F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.127.28 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Elfen Lied episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011004955/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/elfenlied/index.php to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/elfenlied/index.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)