Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion/Archive 3

Missing scene from End of Evangelion
A long time ago, I read the script for a scene that was allegedly supposed to be included in the movie, in place of live action shots towards the end. It was an alternate reality where Shinji and Asuka are living together and in their 20s. If anyone knows anything about this, could the script please be referenced from the End of Evangelion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1-yes there are some scenes we can confirm were storyboarded out to be animated, but weren't (i.e. the Toji basketball scene explaining what happened to the school characters) and there were other things they may have considered but never did; just because a scene might have been considered may mean it was rejected for a reason. 2-There is no live-action film matching your description. There is a new 10 minute live-action sequence added to the beginning of End of Evangelion, in the "Renewal of Evangelion" box set edition, which was never released to North America (the Platinum Edition DVDs left all this out).  However, that's basically just another alternate reality, that instead of being "happy" the way Shinji's sitcom life was in episode 26, its an unhappy boring reality where Shinji never existed.  It's live-action I guess because "the real world is depressing"; it's Asuka living with her boyfriend Toji, neither of them like each other, and generally everyone is bored and miserable going through the motions of daily life.  It was simply yet another "alternate reality";  though I must remind you that the ENTIRE POINT of all of this was that Shinji then stops and says "you know what, there's a million alternate FANTASY realities I could come up with, but the life I had, despite all its flaws, was REAL and that gave it value, so I'll REJECT Instrumentality" --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anonymous: are the live action scenes you are thinking of the ones translated here: http://www.evaotaku.com/html/alteva.html ? I'd like to incorporate them, but I'm afraid of reference nazis objecting to the credentials of Bochan_bird. --Gwern (contribs) 16:56 14 September 2009 (GMT)

Project 2nd Year Anniversary
I created Wikiproject Eva on June 2, 2007 and the Eva Portal on June 6th, 2007. Much has changed; we've finally got Rebuild of Eva 2.0 coming out, which unlike Rebuild 1, is introducing drastic changes from the original continuity. Also the manga restarted recently and live action news may come out relatively soon (now that the writers' strike is over and everyone wants to make the next transformers). As I've said before, we're just trying to do as best we can, given that wikipedia's admins nuked my attempts to make an actual "episode guide" back in 2007. Otherwise, we should try to link news and such because this is where people get most of their Eva news.

But things may be kicking into high gear again soon, given that Rebuild of Eva 1.0 is finally getting its English Dub released this fall, and I do imagine that people that watch that will then find fansubs of Rebuild 2. Eternal vigilance, guys; we have to make sure someone isn't promoting their crazy fanfic ideas, but solid facts.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could ignore the new stuff and look at fixing the awful articles we already have. Almost every single Eva article has basic, fundemental issues that have not been addressed, and even worse, are ignored or not even understood by the people editing them. The priority should be fixing the major aspects of the series that we already have and can actually source properly. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dandy you haven't really been helping out on the article, just putting templates on them saying they aren't good enough then complaining that no one is fixing them up to standards; if you want them to be better you're going to have to help, or articulate specifically what is wrong with certain articles. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly I'm having to post this on my phone, so I'll try to be brief. I work on a lot of articles, I don't work on Eva articles constantly. I'll do some edits here and there - It may be removing some original research here and removing dodgy sources there ( both of which I have done in he last few weeks). Adding maintaiance templates is a fairly important step in improving articles, they are there to highlight issues to editors, in order to show whAt needs looking at. Your removal of the death and rebirth OR tag just shows me that you don't understand simple issues when they are highlighted (and then ignore it when explained). Don't mistake my adding of justified templates for not workng on articles, it's ridiculously misguided as you haven't seen the extensive notes I've made regarding what needs doing andwhy. Nor the work I've started on to be added to articles later. This "what have you done?" attitude is ridiulous, and frankly a little ironic. Firstly this taskforce needs to stop fighting wikipedia so much and work with it. Secondly the basic gaps in editing knowledge need fixing. Now I can help you there, as the issues are the same on pretty much all the articles, so they are easy to identify. At some pont this week I will highlight these issues and help you fix them. I will also suggest the first pages that should be concentrated on, but I need you to work with me, The anime project standards and wikipedias practices. If for some reason this can't be done, then this taskforce will never be taken seriously. I was planning to do this at some point soon anyway, there's too much work to be done not to, but the last day or so has prompted it being raised now. If things carry n as they are, you'll notget one article to GA, nevermind all of them as the project page states. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * V, please understand that for most of us who have the knowledge to fix the technical issues the Eva articles have, we simply have too much else to do on Wikipedia to be able to focus on them. WP:ANIME is looking at (re)starting a collaboration project; once it's up and running, I'll personally recommend the Eva articles as an early effort for the project, and I hope it encourages you to stop accusing Dandy of tag-and-run tactics. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given the suggestion myself in the current discussion there previously, two of th articles fall under the potential importance criterea. Itwas during the initial discussion that I increased my notes and observations so I had a head start when it was up and runnng. I've got one article that needs adding in a position where it's worth putting in main space with minor changes (the workon lupin helped). Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your tags do help more than nothing; still we need to find a way to get actual stuff finished (probably going through one at a time or something). Yes, this group review stuff you bring up is good as well; I was just annoyed that we (all of us) need to do more than tag stuff and figure out what to do: a list of what exactly's wrong (page by page)would be a start I guess.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I tag things, I usually come back to them at a later period (if its not edited much, usually when it reappears on my watchlist). But the tags are self explanatory, if you see one, yuou should have an idea of what needs doing. If not, ask on the talk page in a proper manner, rather then jumping down peoples throats (if you are stressed, step away from the keyboard for a bit) or removing them without fixing the issue. As for page by page issues, give me a few days on the major page that needs sorting first, and you'll get a good idea of what needs doing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evangerion" has to go
I want a vote on this: "Evangelion" is a Greek word. While in English "Evangelist" developed a soft G as in Jam, both Greek *and* Japanese have a hard "G" sound. Also the "E" is pronounced as a long E with a macron over it: this sounds like the letter "A" spoken aloud. NOT "ev" as in "elephant" or "Letter "E" - vangelion". Anyway, that's covered in other areas, but what I want to talk about is how the original-language subheading lists it as "Evangerion" with an R instead of an L. This I assume is because of the R vs L thing in Japanese. However, as I said, Evangelion is a foreign, Greek word, not Japanese. It reminds me of the debate from "Alucard (Hellsing)" where fans even in America insisted that "it's spelled "Arucard""....Crispin Freeman in a video on youtube pointed out that it is set in London, that its a foreign world "Dracula" (spelled backwards) and that when they asked the Japanese licensors, they said "yeah, it's based on "Dracura"" (they honestly thought that was how Dracula was spelled). However, the manga writer then finally said that it was indeed "Alucard" with an L, it's based on "Dracula", he's sorry but he was too busy to fix it. Straight from the horse's mouth. Based on similar lines: 1-Evangelion is directly stated to be a Greek word, not Japanese. It's not simply a romanization of the ambiguous Japanese R/L sound; it's a Greek word using "L", even though Japanese-speaking people in the original dub track slur it 2-the word "Evangelion" is pervasively present on-screen using Latin characters, on computer monitor displays and such, and in these instances it is consistently spelled "Evangelion" with an L. I vote that we remove this "Evangerion" stuff because it simply doesn't make sense. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote? The official english title has always been "Evangelion" (and english titles take priority on en.wiki). It may possibly be correct for the romaji title (say in the nihongo template), but it should never be used outside that at all. Voting seems ridiculously unnecessary Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The original-language subheadings are direct romaji transcriptions of the japanese titles (whether in kanji or kana), and as per the manual of style for JP-articles, they use the Hepburn romanization system. The Hepburn system states that the katakana ラ, リ, ル, レ, ロ are romanized respectively as ra, ri, ru, re, ro. So no, there won't be any change and the romaji transcription of エヴァンゲ リ オン will stay evange ri on.

Besides being "ridiculously unnecessary" (why such a fuss about a purely informative template about the romanization of japanese characters, used only once in the article, and which aim has never been to replace the original loanwords the japanese creators may have used ?), you would need a lot more that this talk to change it. Because it would imply entirely dropping the Hepburn romanization system, finding a new one, and thus starting a global consensus discussion in order to change the JP MoS.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed this was for outside the template, my bad. In that case I reiterate that I agree that the insider of the template should follow the standard we already have - whatever it may be. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So the official rule is that even an anime titled something "Alucard" would be listed as "Arucard"? Well if that is the case I guess we can't change the "Evangerion" stuff. Seems utterly counterintuitive though.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the templates are purely informative about the way the japanese characters are transcribed in roman characters, and they are only supplemental to the official international titles. Alucard is still listed as Alucard, wherever I look. If you think about it, that's what WP do: to inform. Could you explain to me what is wrong in telling people how to pronounce JP words ? On the contrary, I find templates like Neon Genesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Shin Seiki Evangerion) perfectly intuitive. There the proper name, the japanese name ande then the romaji name so that non-JP speakers are able to read it, just like some entries on WP as listed alongside their IPA pronunciation. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebuild of Evangelion: spoilers and new info
Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0 just came out, and unlike Rebuild 1, it drastically alters the original storyline. I want to point out that spoiler tags should always be used on spoiler information. Sourced information is essential given that it isn't even on Japanese DVD yet. Further, Rebuild-character profiles are to be left in small subsections: that is the article "Asuka Langley Soryu" should be about mostly original-Asuka, then at the bottom give a brief description of how Rebuild-Asuka is different, then give a link to the "Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0" article. If more character info is needed (i.e. by Rebuild 4.0, when there's been almost as much Rebuild-Asuka screentime as a full series) we may have to update this...I would guess similar to how "Gundam" handles its many alternate continuities. Keep your eyes peeled boys: Rebuild 2.0 is out, things are really changing now, and Rebuild 1.0 will be on DVD soon and available to the masses. Soon, waves of new fans will be contributing info, and we need to sort and organize it all properly. These are the bad days, the all-or-nothing days, they're back!--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading WP:Spoiler, spoiler tags will add to article issues, not reduce them. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I have started a discussion on merging Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise, Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) to Neon Genesis Evangelion per WP:MOS-AM. This will allow us to improve the quality of the article, and also put most of the information in one place as it should be. You can find the discussion here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well I'll read through the discussion but...I'll have to read through what's on there at the moment; there comes a point with like "Gundam" or "Transformers" when you have to have one master-page talking about the entire franchise then specific pages about subsequent series. Then again, its gotten quite confusing.  I'll look forward to reading through this.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both series are much bigger in size then Evangelion, which only has one anime series, some films and a manga as primary works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC


 * Where is this discussion? Your link is completely broken.
 * If it's here, then let me save you the trouble: No. Absolutely not. Over my dead body. The TV article is already impossibly large; to suggest that the franchise and manga articles be merged back in is a recipe for failure. The mass would swamp any editor, and any such merge would violate a dozen rules of common sense and basic readability principles. The franchise is not the same thing as the TV anime, which is not the same thing as the manga. It makes no more sense to merge those 2 in than to merge Death/Rebirt & End of Evangelion into NGE TV. --Gwern (contribs) 15:43 2 August 2009 (GMT)
 * The page vanished into the archive, hence the broken link. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_39


 * The status of your dead body is not a factor in the discussion, you are one editor, and the result will be decided by consensus.


 * Yes, I do hope it'll be settled by consensus of those editors who actually work on Eva articles.


 * The tv article is impossibly large because it is filled with excessive original research (masquerading as sourced material) and excessive detail and trivia - Wikipedia is not a fan guide nor a refernce to every minute detail in the series.


 * Oh my - it's OR masquerading as sourced material? Nice No true Scotsman there; if that material is unsourced, it's obviously OR and if it's sourced, then it's even worse - it's sinister covert OR! Truly, I must bow before such fair-minded assessments.


 * Nor is Evangelion an exception to set standards for dealing with "franchises". It doesn't matter if they are not "the same thing", they are all part of one franchise, and there are set ways of dealing with such series with appropriate spinouts (and the original manga and anime both share the bulk of the plot, a few scenes change slightly are added or removed, but they tell the same basic story).


 * Fine. Withdraw your suggestion to delete the franchise page, and then we can begin to discuss how different the manga is from the TV anime, and whether it would be too long to include in the TV page.


 * The so called rules of common sense and readibility aren't in use now, the articles are a complete and utter mess, and readibility is non existant. The plot summary alone is longer then many articles are in their entire length.


 * Which is those articles' problem. I don't see why the Eva articles should be dragged down to their level.


 * The discussion is on hold for now as I am simply too busy, but your reasons against it are unconvincing.


 * Unconvincing? I'm not the one batting around claims like 'war is peace'^W^W^W'sourced material is OR' or claiming that somehow everything will be better if we whack anything that looks funny and shove the shattered remnants into a single article.
 * And lucky me - I'm always so grateful when the deletionists decide that maybe they just don't have time to wreck some more articles.

The discussion will be revived at a later time due to various factors, I suggest you review the proposal again at that time as it should be clearer what the result will be. Frankly the current state of the articles is hideous, and large amounts of the "impossibly large" content should be kept to fansites and "unofficial guides", not an encyclopedia. I've not proposed this for any reason other then to get the Evangelion pages to an actual quality level within the parameters laid out for all articles, especially ones within the WP:Anime project. This will only result in clearer, easier to understand articles, that convey the relevant information in a ideal manner (the opposite of now basically). It's the only way you are likely to see any Evangelion pages hit GA. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the articles are that bad. Eva is a very complex, multi-billion dollar franchise of dozens of manga and games and movies and anime and less classifiable media properties. (How many books are there just cataloging Eva merch? 2?) Any set of articles that tries to actually cover Eva while still fitting in the Procrustean bed of policy (and the ever more brutally applied 'guidelines' and 'Manual of styles') will inevitably not be anyone's idea of perfection.
 * As for GAs? Don't kid me. I was around when GA was starting, and I told them that if they weren't careful, GA would turn into FA - and it has done exactly that. A GA these days is what used to be an FA. I want nothing to do with that dishonest process, staffed as it is by people who are mad for rules and guidelines.


 * And if that sound ranty then I apologise, but opening with "over my dead body" without a grasp of the details is well, you should be able to see how that comes off to other people. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon for using the idiomatic resources of English. I will try to put any future objections into Lojban so as to avoid sounding ranty.
 * And I daresay I have a better grasp of the details than you do. Who put those 90 references you so cavalierly denigrate into the Eva article? Who saw the need for, and split the articles apart, in the first place? But I'm sure some random anime editors commenting on your deletion suggestion know better than I do... --Gwern (contribs) 11:27 6 August 2009 (GMT)

Things could evolve in a more positive way if, on one hand, Gwern could stop thinking he owns the Eva articles, drop his agressive tone, and start finding reasons other than "for the sake of it" to justify his opposition to any change. And in the other hand, if Dandy Sephy could explain what he means by "OR masquerading as sourced material", it would avoid others to misinterpret his statements, because I agree with him that some sections of the Eva TV article like "fiction and philosophy", though technically sourced, seem more like OR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Folken, the onus is on anyone who wants to make radical and far-reaching changes to articles (just fixing the links alone represents hundreds of edits) to justify their desire; Dandy is the one who wants to make this change 'for the sake of it'.
 * I have given several reasons not to make the merge: it harms readability by resulting in a single massive article; it is a covert attempt at deleting substantial amount of coverage; the request is a conflation of at least 3 separate issues in this discussion (what in Eva TV may or may not be OR, whether Eva TV should be separate from Eva Manga, and whether an Eva franchise page is justified); that it does not obviously violate any guidelines suggested by a MoS (if, arguendo, the MoS is even binding, the relevant section says separate pages can be justified in multiple ways; I think Eva satisfies both the length and number of works in the franchise suggestions); and that it is the logical way to cover the TV series, the manga, and the whole sprawling franchise.
 * If I am being aggressive, it is because I dislike a tyro insulting my work (and WP:OWN issues aside, the TV and franchise articles are predominately my work) and because I have learned over the many years I have been here that deletionist/exclusionist proposals must be countered vociferously or else they will quietly be rammed through, a fact taught me by the likes of TTN. --Gwern (contribs) 06:27 7 August 2009 (GMT)
 * Gwern, when you begin discussions with arguments like "insulting my work", it's never good. Because no matter how much you wrote of the articles, it will never be "your" work, because Wikipedia is an open and collective effort, and the articles will never be in a fixed form, they will inevitably be changed. So please don't make it a pride issue. You (as a person) are not being targeted, so don't act as if you were. And also, it's not because someone here is proud of the content he added into an article, that the said content is necessarily good. That it is supposedly "your" work cannot be taken into account in this kind of discussion, and cannot be a reason for the rejection of Dandy's proposal. So please, cast aside those claims you have on the Eva articles here, and try to contribute in a more positive way, that is, if you cannot agree with Dandy, at least stop insulting him and stop acting as if propriety was a valid argument here.


 * Because Dandy is far from being wrong. There are many questionable contents in the various Eva articles, and one way or an other, they will have to disappear in order to comply to the rules. So if you really don't agree with the merging proposal, I suggest that we should first look into the 3 separate issue you mentionned, and then we will see if a merge is of use or no. Because the merge possibly being unnecessary doesn't remove all the problems there can be in each article.


 * And I think we should start with OR in articles. Maybe the 3 of us could review the Eva TV article and each explain what we find dissatisfying, try to make a synthesis of our opinions and then try to solve the possible issues ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets get a few things clear rather then sit here and insult/be insulted because someone admits to exhibiting ownership, and is being openly agressive

1) This is not happening right now, and the discussion will come at a later time. There is absolutely no benefit to sitting here and arguing about it. The discussion won't even happen on this page (because very few people know it exists), so it's rather pointless getting angry about it here

2) Gwern, drop the incivility, it's completely unjustified. Since you replied you've done nothing but be insulting, condescending and throwing out all sorts of bad faith (If I was a "tyro" I'd done it without discussion, and it is most certainly not "for the sake of it" the articles are a goddamm mess. The several dozen references quoting entire paragraphs word for word are a giant copyright violation for starters). You aren't helping matters by doing so, you are just making your own bias and inability to discuss it like an adult clear. Throwing your toys out of the pram will not help your attempt to block any changes proposed or made. I strongly suggest you drop the issue until it is raised again properly, I've already said there is some work to be done, so the proposal is not final.

I see no point in continuing this discussion when the issue will be addressed properly at a later date, and in a place where it will attract more attention, and not just the 4 editors who read this page - especially given Gwern's rididculous attitude to the mere concept of editing pages he admits to exhibiting ownership of. A "cooling off" period is certainly in order, and perhaps when some more work has been done on the proposal Gwern's objections will be addressed (if they agree or not). If not, I hope we will get a more grounded response to them? There is the possibility of some content being more suitable on sub pages, and some of it just needs reordering (I notice some sentances belong more in production then some areas, and some things should be in a reception section for example). I did state clearly that some of the information needs sorting through more closely, which is one reason for the delay

In short, lets leave it for now, and address it properly at a later date with clearer heads (it's going to be a few weeks at least). I don't mind objections, as long as the objection is discussed rationally and not in the manner it has been here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, what a mess...at any rate, I don't think that merging the three articles into one is a good idea either. I have no doubt that there's a lot of fat that could be trimmed from the anime article, but I agree with Gwern in that the franchise, anime, and manga articles are distinctly separate entities and merging them will do none of them any good unless the information about the anime and manga are pared down to the barest minimum, and even then I don't think that could be accomplished without leaving a lot of important material out.  I barely check on Wikipedia anymore, but I'd be up for helping out with paring down the anime article...message me if this is going to happen anytime soon.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The spin-off series could wait for a merge, but the first manga's story is basically the same as the anime which should be enough for merging them.Tintor2 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming here as requested by a comment on WT:ANIME. I think the current proposal is putting the frilly bits (compliance to the anime-manga manual of style) in front of the content of the articles - perhaps an alternative strategy would be to resurvey the literature available, citing everything where it lays in the articles. Then it is clearer what is in the articles which isn't (can't be?) supported by sources - this can then be removed, carefully, and the cited content eventually reshuffled into something more manual-of-styley (with discussion). This way would preserve more of the content made by the Evangelion Wikiproject and make the articles even more verifiable and reliable than they already are (great job on those 90 references in the anime article!). --Malkinann (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I really disagree with Tintor2's attempt to revive the discussion, it really needed to be readdress at a later time when it's in a more developed stage, this won't be any time soon.


 * As for this specific comment, I don't know why you are praising excessive copyright violations (copying entire paragraphs from a book, even as a source is not appropriate, and policy is to block repeat offenders.), and much of the content you suggest preserving reads like someones research article. Thats essentially the problem, the "tv" page is excessive analyzing of minor details, as well as discussion of interpretations of symbolism and philosophy. Citing something doesn't make it relevant or suitable content. This is about reducing the riduclous level of analysis and excessive detail (I see two trivia lists, neither of which I would call necessary information that can be reformatted) and formatting the important information into a mannner that is more easily readable. The best way of achiving this is by following MOS-AM, and sorting through the existing content to find the correct level of information, accessibility, readability and complience with policy and guidelines. As it stands the articles don't read like a wikipedia article, they read like a fansite compiling a list of trivia and analysis. I've already stated that the "template" I gave was very rough, I purposelly had not started sorting through the information, the statements regarding production for example are spread across the entire page. I've also just spotted 3 straight paragprahs of unreferenced original research too. There is more then enough fanboy original research and interpretation on Evangelion on the internet, it has no place on wikipedia. The current references don't change that fact. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the current content is problematic, it can be reworked, per our editing policy. I was of the understanding that if quoting is needed, to keep it under 10% and it's not a copyright violation.  Articles on Wikipedia should reflect the literature - if the literature goes into symbolism/philosophy, then so too should the article.  It may be easier to just delete a lot of stuff to try and force Evangelion into the MOS-AM mould, but that does the articles, the readers of the articles, and the editors who've worked on the articles a disservice.  I notice that you've got a lot of sources which aren't being used on the Evangelion pages - perhaps start with including those?  --Malkinann (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting a couple of sentances here and there is one thing, and unlikely to raise many complaints (although its generally unnecessary outside of a reception section). Doing it with entire paragraphs dozens of times is quite another. It should't be done in references either - we have the very wonderful Cite Book for references, which actualy allows people to check for themselves. Theres a difference between addressing the work, and addressing every minute detail. Saying the series addresses symbolism and philosophy is a lot different from explaining it in detail with a list of OR examples. I've already said some of the existing content can be reworked, but theres a lot of excessiveness that needs to be cut. The stuff I'm proposing to "delete" fails policy and guidelines already! If deleting questionable content makes the articles better, then so be it. Why should we be trying to keep things on these articles that are't tolerated or accepted on other articles? I would start editing the existing content where necessary as a start (i.e. removal the blatant original research and trivia lists) but Gwern's comments don't exactly fill me with hope of any agreement there. And I'm not getting into an edit war over content that doesnt belong. As you say I have some sources, but the current issues need addressing before we add more content. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not getting why I'm saying source before deleting/consolidating content - I'm hoping that some of what is already in the articles can be found/triangulated with a wider view of the literature on Evangelion. When I was reading Drazen's book, I was able to cite something in the Kaworu article which had been previously fact-tagged for some time, thus preserving the content. --Malkinann (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree...and it's not just the articles mentioned here. None of the spin off games deserve nobility, i placed a message notifying the articles that do not deserve nobility. we should defintely eliminate every article about neon genesis evangelion that does not hold any nobility.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to Fix the entire Neon Genesis Evangelion articles
Ok here is my proposal. We should re-summarize the plot (TV). not give the whole story but still give the main Idea of the series. Completely remove  The End of Evangelion and place it in other media. Re-summarize 'Origin and Production by removing trivial details and independent information, in fact, lets remove the origin and just keep it at production. Re-summarizing Characters section by removing unnecessary quotes from the creator. Remove the Inspiration and Symbolism OR merge some of the information with Origin and Production which may later be just left as production but remove the symbolism with in the section. Completely remove Psychology and psychoanalytic theory, Religion and Fiction and Philosophysince those sections holds only independent and original research. In fact there are two sections that mention inspiration, who ever made these section was clearly oblivious to Wiki guidelines and rules. Completely remove the Translation notes on the title and re-summarize it in the inspiration and influence section. Add reception to the article.

this is just a proposal, anything you don't like please mention it. that way the article can flow much better, and it allow the article for merging with the manga and the franchise. IN fact....franchise is completely worthless, it's only an extension to other media. So franchise does not need to be merged with the main article, it just needs to be completely removed.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting proposal. I don't agree with your idea of "not giving the whole story" - spoilers should not be treated differently from any other content.  I still feel that the best way forward is to source as much as possible, then go about removing other stuff carefully.  There's no sense in chucking out the baby with the bathwater. Quotes from the creator about the process of developing a character are perfectly valid in a character list or article, the writing about fiction manual of style even calls for such content.  --Malkinann (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not about spoiling, it's just that we don't have to give the whole plot just to explain what NGE is about. if it we want to give the whole story we should just call it story instead of plot. quotes on the character are fine, but only on the list of character section, we don't have to give a whole mess of detail just to explain characters when there's much more detail on side article. Everything just needs to summarize and all independent research can be removed. I don't know what you mean by chucking out the baby with the bathwater. There's no point in sourcing everything though, the most of the information that is unsourced is very trivial. there's no point keeping religion, or philosophy, or all that i mentioned.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you feel that the plot summary and summary style could be improved? How so?  Please try to source what is there first rather than deleting it, as you may accidentally remove material which could be important for the article.  "Chucking out the baby with the bathwater" in this instance refers to making sure removal of material is not overzealous.  Are you sure it's trivial information?I thought religion and philosophy are important themes in Evangelion.  By going through the literature and citing what one can, it's clearer what information is relevant to the article.  --Malkinann (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

that information is very trivial, wiki isnt a news source to give every little detail, religion? are we going to say Castlevannia or Devil may cry catholic and cristian? it's just a theme, religion always plays some part in some animes. it's too much excessive information that is not needed in an article.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that you guys are having independent thinking to instead of normal wiki standards....philosophy and religion are just themes of the anime and/or manga. and the references on religion only hold religion, but no evangelion, why is that? if the source holds nothing about the series itself than it should be removed. there are many MANY anime and mangas out there that have both religion and philosophy, you can look them up, but they don't make a separate article explaining how the philosophy or religion works. If there was a notable source talking about NGE and how it links to its philosophy and religion, than yes it could possibly stay. but even then the information is far too trivial Don't think i just recommend something without having a proper look.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also to let you ALL know, i only deleted what i couldn't find, the sections i found hold absolutely no fact and were speculation, original research, independent research. SO whatever i deleted i did for proper thinking. I saw phycological as a genre i looked it up and wasnt placed as a gnere category, i looked for other websites saying what genre they categorized it and couldn't find it.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The genre section has always been a mess - anons arguing about whether it's seinen or shonen, whether post-apocalyptic is genre (or whether Eva is really apocalyptic)... I wish we could just remove that field, but people would object. (Or would they? Would anyone here object to blanking out that field?) --Gwern (contribs) 17:13 14 September 2009 (GMT)

Back then it wasn't as bad, back then it was good until the Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise came to existence. that article is unnecessary.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ONe more proposal
once the anime article has been fixed and merged with the franchise and manga. I feel we should remove all NGE articles about games, and spin off mangas and put them in merchandise section in the NGE (series). None have enough notability. SO we should remove them, there's really no point giving references to them since they aren't really famous out there. AS for the movies, i suggest we merge the end of evangelion and revival of evangelion to Evangelion: Death and rebirth because they are only remakes and hold no notability to be seperate. they both hold the same plot just slightly edited. Bread Ninja (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A better alternative to merging the games to the series article would be to create a List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games, like List of Sailor Moon video games. There are multiple reliable sources which discuss End of Evangelion, which passes the general notability guidelines for a standalone article. A more thorough review of the available literature may prove that some of the manga series are also sufficiently notable to have their own pages. --Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

the size of thea rticle is too small and the notable sources dont really hold up to the article, only whats already there, but no reception, there's no detail, it's just fandom. The mangas dont have much nobliltiy to substain there own page. Again it's easier just to keep them in one article. the manga don't hold enough information aswell to keep there own page. We can compare this to rozen maiden or blood+ articles. they keep everything brief. And what about the Evangelion: Death and rebirth suggestion? i think that's the one that should have never been made into three separate articles. It's best to keep spin offs stories and games in the main article. i dont believe they are notable as an independent article.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you understand me - there are multiple reliable sources which discuss End of Evangelion, which passes the general notability guidelines for a standalone article. Size and quality of the article is not a factor, and articles generally improve over time.  Lists are an appropriate method of managing groups of related content.  There has to be a balance between what's "easy" to manage, and what's an appropriate level of detail for the subject.  Do not be seduced by merging or deleting everything for the sake of ease!  How do you know somethng is not notable unless you've tried to find out if it is? --Malkinann (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

some of these articles are extreme old. again end of evangelion is only a remake, and the same for revival, it's like making final fantasy VII: Advent children complete into a separate article from the original final fantasy VII:Advent children. Remakes from the same creator do not deserve separate articles, its much better to place it under death and rebirth article. As for the manga and games i definitely looked up the references and some of them are notable, but just because there are notable sources doesn't make it notable. again it's about having 'enough' notable sources. it doesn't go with WP:FAILN, and trust me i have searched for notable sources for a while before recommending merging. A list of games? possible but it's much more simpler to keep them in one article again.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The general notability guidelines say they do 'deserve seperate articles' - they are covered by multiple reliable sources (not merely as a sidenote to the main series), therefore they are notable enough to have their own articles. I don't understand what you mean when you say "some of them are notable, but just because there are notable sources doesn't make it notable".  It is better to have the list of games rather than merging all the games into the 'main article' because it preserves more information, and the lead of the games list could be incorporated into the 'main article'.  Ease, as you describe it (merging/deleting all of Evangelion into one article), is a false economy, as it means that the coverage of Evangelion would be inadequate.  --Malkinann (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

what i'm trying to say is that just because there are few notable sources does not mean that the article has enough notable sources to be called notable, there needs to be more than just a few 2 or 3. the manga articles are what concern me, not the games. very little information and for what? a whole large number of articles? you guys have a list of manga chapters with Doujinshi and spin off series, it seems off to have so many articles that hardly have any sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

oh and this basically back me up even further WP:N Bread Ninja (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A few articles which discuss the work in depth are enough - if I was to request an article to be made at WP:ANIME/REQUEST, three reviews are sufficient (though a more comprehensive survey of the literature means the articles are better). --Malkinann (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum is 2 non-trivial per WP:BK #1. It mention multiple so the minimum is 2 and more the better. --KrebMarkt 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

none of the sources are being used. they are just sitting there. Again they have notable sources but not enough for a separate article, and the guidelines does allow us to merge them with the main article. I especially want the manga and the movie to be fixed. the movie and it's remake should be merged, i don't see why they have to be separate. it's the same movie only that they sold two slightly different versions and sold separately.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

what we need to have enough notability for the other articles
for mangas we can use the book category of notability shown here WP:NB, theres all the things we can use for the manga articles to be kept as seperate articles. so basically the guidelines is asking for some reception similar to what is asked. i know it's a book and much different than the manga, but that's the closest thing we have.

for games there really isn't something as specific as games, but compared to most games out there including RP games, we seen much more notable information and seen being used, compared to that i believe none of the separate game articles actually made it to notability that are in the NGE series, so i suggest we search more information or merge them to the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

here's one more for the films WP:NF just to help things along.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NF and WP:NB are supplementary to WP:N, and demonstrate additional ways a film or a book may show notability. WP:N covers everything - so if we can find multiple reliable sources which discuss the games in-depth, they are notable.  I still think that merging the games to a List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games is a better option than merging them to the 'main article', if they are deemed less-than individually notable.  --Malkinann (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, with the games. but the manga and films? remakes and spin offs dont deserve independent notability aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which articles are you talking about specifically? I have already demonstrated that End of Evangelion, Evangelion Death and Rebirth, Angelic Days and the Shinji Ikari Raising Project meet the general notability guidelines for independent articles.  I'm confused by your paradigm that articles "deserve" or "don't deserve" independent notability - I've always viewed it as more of a "having notability" or "doesn't have notability" spectrum, with stops along the way for list articles. Would you please mind explaining your paradigm further?  --Malkinann (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding reviews in external links does not support notability. They have to be used in a reception section.Tintor2 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does support notability, because listing them proves that they exist and can be used for the improvement of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cant you see? They dont have notability for independent articles because they fall in Evangelion: Death and rebirth. it's still related to the same article, it's only going to a specific area but the general reception hold to the article i mentioned. also external links do NOT count as notable source, you need a reference and citation.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The compilation was released after both the films were released. I believe both the films have individual notability as they both meet the general notability guideline.  If you take issue with the reviews being only in external links and not being used yet in the articles, I suggest you be bold - incorporate the reviews into the articles and improve them, as I did for End of Evangelion. --Malkinann (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, i will have to 'again' compare this to Final Fantasy VII Advent Children to the remake final fantasy VII advent children complete. a different name, different time release but again, the same movie, only edited AND released at a different time, BUT still did not withheld the notability even though it holds MORE notable sources than the revival and the end of evangelion. they are the same movie only edited and released different times, but there is no other.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing this to a movie I've never heard of before without linking to it properly isn't helping me understand your point. Can you please think of another example?  --Malkinann (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Oh and there are many movies out there that had made a remake but still was kept in the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you don't believe me heres one more article Pinocchio (1940 film)Bread Ninja (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also Blade Runner and Versions of Blade Runner, and Jungle 2 Jungle and Un indien dans la ville. Just because something else is merged into one article, doesn't neccessarily mean it should be followed for other articles.  End of Evangelion and Evangelion Death and Rebirth are not remaking the same content as each other, so it's not the same situation as the Final Fantasy film or Pinocchio.  --Malkinann (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

those easily failed, one is an american version while the other is french, that movie was different. it's not animation. As for the remakes of Blade runner, those actually had much more notable sources. Again, you only brought one piece of evidence while i brought two. Evangleion was made by the same people, published by the same people and released by the same people. the story is exactly the same, including animation, there is nothing keeping it separate since it holds the same plot, same ending, they only edited a bit and sold it seperately. again it does not have notability, and again only external links.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FFVII Advent Children complete was just a director's cut version of the original film (more scenes, the same production). I have not seen Death and Rebirth, but End of Ev does not use the same material from the anime. Although it can be considered a remake made from a different point of view, the film is a different anime production.Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

due further research, they remade into blu-ray new scenes not including the deleted ones. not just a directors cut. death and rebirth, revival, and the end. we have to merge all three. revival holds no notable source at all, just one external link. that;s it. And it's the unification of both death and rebirth and The end. it holds no notability but where can it be placed? either death and rebirth or The end. unless we merge the two it will allow us to give a proper place. unless we just lcompletely remove revival and just mention it in the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "they remade" what it was remade? If the films pass wp: notability there is no need to merge them. External links do not pass notability but if it is planned to merge them, it should be done with merge tags.Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The external links do help prove the notability of Angelic Days and Shinji Ikari Raising Project because they are links to reliable sources. --Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

again, there needs to be enough notability. not just that they it, there needs to be enough. Also it cant be supported by only external links....and why change the subject all of a sudden?Bread Ninja (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already told you that two or three reviews are sufficient notability for a standalone article, and I believe Tintor may be speaking in general, so I have pointed him to two specific articles and explained the external links as being more of a 'further reading' than an external links section. Have you even tried looking for more sources, or improving the articles by using the sources I've found?  If the articles are improved with reference to sources then notability becomes even more clear.  --Malkinann (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have and i have found none again i would like to remind you guys that i don't put up a discussion when it suits me, only when i cannot find anything to suit the article. Also revival of evangelion has no link, i looked for reviews on it and have found none, i don't read japanese so how am i able to place the reviews in here?Bread Ninja (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try reading the reviews for Death and Rebirth and expanding that article's reception section, as I did for End of Evangelion? --Malkinann (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is better to be bold than suggesting other editors what to do.Tintor2 (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I already did for End of Evangelion and have provided some reliable sources for other articles. --Malkinann (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Still it is better to be bold that suggesting other editores what to do.Tintor2 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In principle, yes, but in practice, I'm tired, I don't like Evangelion enough to overcome it, and I feel I have done enough for now to demonstrate the notability of these articles. --Malkinann (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An external link is composed of material that cannot be used in the article. If you are tired, feel free to rest, the sources added appear to be reliable but a reception section is what the article needs to pass notability.Tintor2 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * External links sections can also absorb further readings. Further readings, if they are sufficiently in depth, can demonstrate notability, yes?  --Malkinann (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It may give notability to the subject but not to the article.Tintor2 (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How does that work, then? If the subject is notable, then the article is also notable.  --Malkinann (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * External links only work as further reading, not notability. The article still will lack notability no matter how many external links there are since there's no reception.Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Further readings count towards notability if they are sufficiently in depth - the GNGs only say that multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in depth must exist and be verifiable, not how they must be used in the article. Linking them proves that there are verifiable multiple reliable sources which discuss the article in depth, which I believe satisfies the GNGs.  The GNGs give no guidance on content of articles, which is what I believe you're getting at by saying that the further readings must be used in a reception section, rather than just being listed.  --Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

i've been looking for quite some time, which doesnt concern me....i also need to see if these reviews are reliable. but oh wlell, just because someone reviewed it doesnt mean that it's reliable, i cant find a poper source to these....sigh...so tired....i've been searching since thursday. i have not suggested what others should do, i suggested what we should all do, including me, i did join this group so we all have to contribute.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't mind resting if you are tired. By the way, I was not referring to you in my last previous comment.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may find WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources helpful, as well as the other pages. --Malkinann (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ok new proposal, we imitate Versions of Blade Runner article, so Death and rebirth, revival, and the end would all go into one article BUT have there own separate sections.


 * Your continued proposals to merge the films are beginning to look like a refusal to get the point.  We have rejected merging the films End of Evangelion and Evangelion Death and Rebirth as both films meet the general notability guideline.  --Malkinann (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i'm going by your example, so why not? If we go to what you want, then we must follow the same viewpoint in every single thing about NGe. so there's no point in merging franchise with the main article, there's no real point in keeping the games within a list as you suggested.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, we have rejected merging the films End of Evangelion and Evangelion Death and Rebirth as both films meet the general notability guideline. Lists are a perfectly appropriate way to deal with groups of articles which may not show individual notability, but which, as a whole, are a notable part of a franchise.  Mind you, I have not really looked yet for sources for the games, as I assume you are looking too.  I don't understand what you mean by "there's no point in merging franchise with the main article", or exactly what you have planned there.  --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

didnt your last discussion talk about franchise and manga merging with the anime series and most of you were pro? and yes,i'm still looking for 3 reviews on the games, none are reliable sources. we can still merge revival with the end of. I gave up on arguing about death and rebirth.


 * End of Evangelion meets the general notability guideline and should not be merged with Revival of Evangelion. --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

again, not articles should stay separate just because they are able to stay that way. the general notability guideline doesn't inforce articles to be separate.

Independent research
Since it's better to split my last proposal into smaller pieces. i would like to say that i did further research on Psychology and psychoanalytic theory, Religion, Fiction and philosophy and they don't hold any notable sources to NGE anime. the sources only talk about religion, but nothing on NGE. We need sources that connect the claims to the main article. I have not found any reliable source confirming these claims. So i believe we should remove the sections listed. most of the sources there only hold any information connecting to NGE. As for  Translation notes on the title there seems to be only one reliable source but after that everything is original research. please note that religion and theories do not support the article, they are just themes that some anime have and listing references to those themes isn't part of wiki standards. it's all independent research and hardly any reference to back up the claims. I have not touched the article yet, so please dont think that i have, it's a proposal Bread Ninja (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_(anime) is cited to Susan J. Napier, who is a professor in Asian languages/literature and who has written about Evangelion multiple times. Carl Horn assisted in the production of the English manga, and so is a reliable source.  I am a little concerned in the last part about the use of Sartre and Kierkegaard, which seems to be supported by Manabu Tsuribe (a fan?  Is he a reliable source, anyone?), but the rest of the inspiration and symbolism section seems to be OK.  --Malkinann (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that references dont talk about NGE at all. the references need to talk about how religion impacts on NGE, it's not that it isnt a reliable source, it's just very difficult to use in this article because it holds independent research. Carl horn assisted in production of the english manga, ok, still skeptical about this one. We cant just post information just because the person reliable source barely links to the series. it needs to be a direct link.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the information is very trivial, we dont need to list the references or explain concepts of the theme of NGE.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment gives the impression you're refering to Napier's work when you say "sources don't talk about Evangelion". Yet it seems obvious that an article titled Fantasy, Reality, and Terminal Identity in Neon Genesis Evangelion does talk about Eva. So you should really specify which sources you're targetting here. I agree with you some so-called sources are just disguised OR, but there are still many perfectly valid references.
 * As for Carl Horn, he is an anime journalist, who even wrote a book on otaku culture and who is now a manga editor. He also took part in the english adapatation of the Eva manga, in which several of his articles were published as supplements. Yes, he is a reliable source.


 * For me, the real problem is the "Fiction and philosophy" section. It quickly degenerates into OR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

the information is still very trivial. and how are they valid? Wikipedia isn't a news source, so we don't need to add everything about NGE in the article including terminology or ideas not officially introduced by the creators. there is hardly anything to 'targer' it's most of the inspiration and symbolism, jsut click on a few and you know what i mean. I'll give an example Religion is comparing adam and lillith being the first humans to the NGE adam and lillith being the first angels with the reference to this '''In episode 23,Tear/Rei III, Ritsuko states that "These are dummies. And nothing but parts for Rei. Humans found a god, and thus, tried to obtain it. As a result, humanity was punished. That was 15 years ago. The god that they found vanished. However, they tried to revive the god themselves. It was Adam. A human was made from Adam to be close to the god. That is Eva." See also Fujie 2004: "Elsewhere, we learn, "That which was born of Adam is the Eva", effectively proving that Adam was the model for the Evangelions." (pg 48)'''. it doesn't explain adam and eve being the first humans, so how is the reference proving a connection? another oen is the room of gaff, it only holds one note on it but somehow were able to make a connection with this reference '''However the vessel which truly contains a soul is Rei. Only she has a soul. None of the other vessels have a soul. There was nothing within the room of Gaff. These Rei-like things here do not have a soul." from Episode 23, Rei III. Ritsuko's statement may also be translated as "These things are empty husks, they have no souls, no right to live. The room of Gaff, is empty."''' also religion hardly holds any references at all, only very few.

the article compares to work just by one word, like hedgehog dilemma just because the naime has used that word, you guys somehow able to make a connection to someone elses work, yes carl horn is a reliable source...but the information is very trivial, hardly mentioned any connection in the anime or during production. information that is not trivial would affect the character or plot section, but it doesnt, so there's no point keeping these sections alive. reliable source can also have trivial information.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources are deemed reliable (or "valid") if they meet various criteria. Which is the case of most sources on the Eva articles. And if university professors and anime journalists thought some aspects of Eva to be important enough to warrant articles on them, then they are not trivial for the article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia must talk about the work itself, what it is made of, what are its themes, where they come from, etc. So yes, the origins of several concepts of Evangelion deserve to be included.


 * Wikipedia is not a news source, but it is an encyclopedia and as such it must contain as much valuable information possible on the subject. The value of the content is generally established through the existance of reliable, third party sources. If a content can be verified by a reliable source, then most of the time it deserves inclusion. Adding trivial bits of information is generally not encouraged on WP, however, the best way to determine if something is trivial or not, is to check if it was mentionned in reliable sources. If someone reliable enough considered something important, then it's likely to be important for the article also.


 * Concerning Evangelion, the question here is to know if philosophical/psychanalytic/religious concepts are important to Evangelion (as a work of fiction). These concepts are found throughout the episodes, some are directly referenced in the episode titles or in the dialogues. Anno himself said that one of the aim of Eva was to explore the personality of its characters, so the philosophical and psychanalytic allusions in the show are definitely important, and that there exist numerous works from critics, journalists and professors who try to analyse and comment these notions, is a proof of this.


 * However, I agree with you that some sections, particularly "Fiction and philosophy", are not sourced and are merely the interpretation of some contributors. As such, they should be removed, but only because they are not sourced.


 * Concerning the religious elements, the creators of the show have said multiple times they had no real meaning. So we shouldn't take time to build an analysis of these elements if they don't hold any key to the show. However, the use of these religious elements in the show is important, because few anime before Eva featured such a profusion of christian symbols, and many viewers were very puzzled by them to the point that the creators themselves were asked several times about the meaning of these references. So they definitely deserve inclusion in the article, but maybe it's not useful to list every single reference as it's the case now, and only the most obvious references should be kept (among others: the crosses, Eva, Adam, Lilith, Longinus). Of course, such a section requires reliable sources, but given the topic, that shouldn't be hard to find.


 * As for the examples you're citing:
 * link Adam/Eve, Adam/Eva: the reference is in my opinion important, since it's about the names of the main mecha and of the main ennemy of humanity, in the show. However, I agree with you that in its current form, the information is not properly sourced, the sources proposed don't verify the statement, indeed, the quotes don't mention the biblical Adam and Eve. I don't think it should be too hard to find something better in the various reliable sources we have, but if no improvement is made, ultimately, the part linking Adam/Eve and Adam/Evas, may have to be removed.
 * The room of Gaff: the name is only mentionned twice in the show. It is never really explained and even though we could argue it holds a certain significance in End of Evangelion, neither the anime meaning nor the original meaning appear clearly understandable. Removing the original research from this entry would make it appears as trivia. I think it may be removed entirely.
 * Hedghehog Dilemma: This concept appears as early as the 4th episode. It is a very well-known psychological analogy used by equally known thinkers. The characters in Evangelion refer to it as an existing philosophical concept, and it is used at the sime time by the characters and by Anno, to understand Shinji's personality. As the Dilemma is essential to define Shinji, the main character, it would not be productive at all to remove any mention of it in the article. It's a part of these psychological notions that are at the roots of the show itself and that have probably been commented many times in reliable sources.


 * You see, for some examples, you're totally right. However you tend to extend your view to the whole article while some content is perfectly admissible. You really need to spend much more time on this, because we're not going to just delete everything that was written before. Some statements, and even whole sections, should disappear, I agree with you, but it won't work for everything else in the article.


 * I agree with you on reliable sources possibly containing trivia, but when an element is the very subject of a reliable source, or when an element mentioned in a reliable sources is really significant to the creation of the show, then it's not trivia and it perfectly deserves inclusion.


 * What concerns the general creation of the show is certainly NOT trivia, as it's the aim of WP to explain the birth of a work of fiction. You must realize that if we remove whatever you think might be trivia, then the article would be almost empty and would be useless to keep it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

those were just two examples, have you even looked at the references? i don't have to list every reference in the article that was wrong, i only listed 2 so that you can see how bad the references were. try to look at them yourself. If the creator did not intend any meaning behind the religious references yet other sources contradict that, then we shouldn't even call it reliable, even if it comes from usually reliable source. the information is definitely trivia, especially the Psychology and psychoanalytic theory. listing references to a specific theme in in an article are most definitely not part of wiki standards. like let's say this was a usual reliable source and she compares that NGE has various similarities to a theme and claims that the creator intended to make it similar to this other anime, yet the creator denied it and merely called it coincidence. will we still use this reliable source? i say yes, we can use the source, just not the recent information. and no Wikipedia isn't about putting as much information as possible, it's about putting the most information we can that meets wiki standards. this is a problem. the information is not even completely sourced, the only thing sourced well is the

we should keep all the information that we know is fact, instead of Psychology and psychoanalytic theory which is the most trivial piece of information here, it's merely a theory. just because the guy helped produce the English one, meant that he knew everything about NGE? These references are speculation even from the reliable sources themselves, these sources have yet to confirm these pieces of information are true.

again, reliable sources is one thing, but the trivial information is another. You all keep saying reliable sources, reliable sources, on and on, but you guys have yet tried to confirm if the information is trivial. the information is suited mostly for fan. Wiki doesn't condemn the articles to explain a reference to themes.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source writes contradictory interpretations, then they still deserve to be included, because they're from reliable source. "Reliable" doesn't mean "the official truth", it just means that source comes from someone who is competent in a particular field and whose work has been deemed serious enough to be published. But anyway, I don't think we can find many sources on the particular aspect of religious interpretations (and if we do find some, then they will be included, so that all the opinions that have been expressed on the subject are represented).
 * "Psychology and psychoanalytic theory" cannot be removed because it concerns important aspects of Evangelion that are not trivial (if one of the main theme of the show is deemed "trivial", then I can't see what would not be trivial), and because there are several reliable sources covering the topic. However I agree with you that some statements are badly sourced:
 * Note 54 doesn't verify the statement it is attached to. The contributor himself thought, after reading a book, that a plot element in Evangelion was close to a real-life psychoanalysis theory, and cited the book itself as the source. However, this is called original research by synthesis, because the statement from the article is not directly verified by the source, instead the contributor is reaching his own conclusion by linking 2 sources that are not linked together by a 3rd reliable source. I totally agree with you that this is a case of OR and bad sourcing, however the idea itself is not too far-fetched (I would even say it's quite obvious, after reading a quote from the said book), and thus it shouldn't be too hard to correctly source the statement using one of the reliable sources we already have. So, source it better, OK, remove it on the spot, not yet.
 * The last paragraph should use more third party reliable sources rather than the show itself. It doesn't advance original theories, but the use of psychological concepts and notions to describe the characters' behavior should be sourced. Again, none of this is far-fetched and should be easy to be sourced. That's why I don't think immediate deletion is required here.


 * I've already said it, and I won't repeat it again, for me, the real problem is the "Fiction and philosophy" section. The first 2 paragraphs contain many badly sourced trivia, however, from the 3rd paragraph onward, it's a festival of original research and synthesis (users finding corresponding elements in philosophical books and citing the books themselves). The analyses are too much developed to be entirely sourced, so a lot of that content will have to disappear.


 * For the next part, I think you refer to the comparisons between Eva and Rahxephon. If notable sources found there were similarities, and the creator of the other work statede it was mere coincidence, then both source deserve to be included. Eva vs Rah is a notable debate because it was mentionned by reliable reviewers. However it's not because the creator of Rah denied the similarities, that the debate itself should disappear. Again, Wikipedia is not about writing the "official truth", it is about reporting what various people have said on a subject. If several notable people disagree, then their opposition has to be reported, that is called neutrality. We report what has been said on both sides, and not only the "official" answer. Wikipedia does not choose sides.


 * I agree with you that Wikipedia is about including the most content possible within the limits of WP's standards. However if some content perfectly corresponds to these standards, there's no reason to remove it. And while I agree with you that there are many, many problematic things in the Eva article that will have to be removed, there are also many perfectly valid and reliable pieces of information. And I'm puzzled because you suggest to delete everything, even valid content, just because you found some problems. Instead of focusing on the problems, you would remove many useful elements.
 * That's why I'm trying to explain that you should try to precisely identify the problems rather than to nuke everything, because the article wouldn't benefit from that. But, again, I am not saying the obviously badly sourced content should remain. No. I'm in favor of removing it, however I want to remove only what's problematic and not what is fine.


 * "Keeping the info we know is fact" ? Again, I remind you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". As long as it is correctly sourced, nothing should be removed just because some consider it would not be the "official truth". Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about what various people have said on a particular topic.
 * As for the "Psychology and psychoanalytic theories" section, yes, some of it is interpretation, and since this interpretation comes from reliable sources, then it is perfectly acceptable on WP. And I would say it is absolutely vital to include this kind of reliable interpretation. Without it, WP is just a database.
 * You mention Carl Horn again. Not only did he contribute to the english version of the NGE manga, he is also a journalist and critic of japanese animation, and as such, he has knowledge and experience in this field, and that makes his interpretations notable, even if they were contradictory with statements from the creator of a show. Sources don't have to "prove" what they advance, and authors don't have to "know everything" on a subject. Otherwise we wouldn't write articles anymore since no human being can have absolute knowledge. I won't discuss this anymore. You cannot talk about reliability if you don't really understand what it means for WP. Please read the official policies of WP on the subject, because I'm growing tired of repeating the same things over and over.


 * Yes, we talk a lot about "reliable sources", because it is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. As you said, the content Wikipedia can include is defined by the standards, and "reliable sources" is one of these standards. If you want to ignore reliable sources, then you're violating Wikipedia's rules.
 * And you are talking a lot about "trivial information", but you have yet to define "trivia", and to prove that what you say is trivia, really is trivia. Most of what you call "trivia" comes from reliable sources and is among the major aspects behind the creation of Evangelion. Anno said that when he created Eva, he wanted to focus on the characters's feelings and psyche, and many episodes feature blatant references to major philosophical and psychanalytic works, and let's not talk about the last 2 episodes. So how can you say that sections focusing of philosophical and psychanalytic references would be "trivia" ? How can you say that sections explaining the birth of Evangelion, all the ideas behind the show, would only be "for fans" ? How can you say all this wouldn't interest people reading an encyclopedia. Tell me, what do you expect to find in an encyclopedia article, a mere database, or explanations delving deep into the subjects ?
 * Let me remind you that "trivia" does not have a clear-cut definition in Wikipedia. Sometimes, it's obvious, sometimes, it is not. If it is obvious, then most contributors would agree with you. If it is not, then your task is to try to convince others and to form a consensus around your opinion. And given the recent discussions, there is no consensus if favor of your interpretation of what would be trivia. In fact the consensus seems mostly against you.


 * I'm not saying all this to discourage you. On the contrary, I find it necessary to clean up the Eva article, and I totally agree with you on some elements being very badly sourced and not deserving inclusion. It's just that you're obviously not familiar with all the rules of content inclusion on Wikipedia, and while you're doing it with good faith, many things that you want to remove are perfectly valid and reliable. And I just can't agree with that. You can't remove just everything just because you found problematic content among many other good elements. That's not a real solution. It will just empty the article of its substance. Wikipedia is made to delve into various subjects, not just to barely scratch the surface.
 * Also, I'm not very happy to see that after several days of discussions with various contributors, you still refuse to take into account the explanations and justifications they have given you. You don't know all the rules of inclusion there are on WP, yet you don't even seem to try to understand them when we explain them to you. You just don't seem to fully read our posts. You keep repeating invalid arguments about, for example, Carl Horn not being notable, while Malkinann and I have already told you multiples times that yes, according to the rules, he is perfectly notable. You fail to prove, according to the official criteria of WP, why Horn would not be reliable, yet you keep saying he is not. You just don't listen to us.
 * This is beginning to wear on my nerves. Even though I initially agreed with you (at least on some points), I'm disappointed to see you're not ready to listen to others and to make compromises. And since not everything you propose is acceptable, I guess we're not going anywhere, because without achieving consensus, you can not really do much on the article (and if you do it nonetheless, you'd probably be reverted). It would be of no use to continue to argue with you, particularly if means going around in circles about the meaning of "reliability" on Wikipedia. I won't argue forever on truth vs reliability. Either you're willing to understand, or it all stops. If you keep repeating the same things, I guess this will be my last contrib' in this debate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh....this is a problem indeed. because everyone else just assumes that the whole thing is good, or some elements are good. the information is still trivial, like i said,

1)i'm not trying to argue if these are notable or reliable, I'm trying to say if these reliable sources have trivial information. and i know it would be reverted, that's why i bring it to discussion. if you keep talking about how many days we talked about this then we wont go anywhere. once more, and once again, to you, who has yet to grasp what i have been trying to say. yes reliable sources, don't have a problem with that, but again, reliable sources do contain trivial information. a theory is just a theory, Carl horn has yet to confirm it true. Will we list every theory that a reliable source has? i specifically remember those theories being removed from The End of Evangelion plot even though some had reliable sources.

2)it's not like i bring these topics out of the blue...i do further research, it's been over a month, i try not to bring these things up because the way NGE articles are, i assume that everyone might deny my ideas, which aren't really bad at all, it's just a matter of will to understand them and don't think i don't understand you, but i just simply don't agree that everything that is reliable should be mentioned, like i said....wiki isn't a news source. you only bring up WP but you don't bring examples of the article itself. on the other hand i look this information up and see trivial information, again, some of these don't give the connection to NGE at all, like malkinnan said, the person who wrote about the religion also wrote about NGE, but that's not convincing enough to call it a connection. the source shouldn't be the main connection. For example, an article says that a certain anime is based of another anime that the creator has made, it's from a reliable source but the creator completely denies it. are we going to call the information reliable just because it comes from a reliable source? should every piece of information automatically become reliable because it's from a reliable source? it's only one person who is against it being trivial, you, malkinnan only questioned me at first about it being trivial and has yet to answer, which is fine. Contradictory information is reliable sometimes, but when it argues with he creator itself, then the information may be trivial ( i say 'may' because you might not think it is) the way the inspiration and influences are making these section look, it makes some people believe it's fact, it's not listed as proper speculation. Contradictory information is good when it contradicts another reliable source. like an interviewer contradicts another interviewer or an journalist contradicts another journalist, or reviewer against it cant contradict absolute truth. not only isn't it not true, but the article says like it's absolute fact. In fact, WP:NOR says that multiple statements should be cited or avoided, in this case we can do both parts. these sources can just all be summarized and be said "NGE has many references to religion. although Anno has denied religion to be the main influence in the series, many journalist and interviewers have made there own assumption and theory to the references of religion within the series."

3) your assuming that we should remove every little piece of information out there. wrong, i merely want to remove the sections, the information could lay in production and be said in the first summary about religion or even in the reception, but the sources aren't suppose to create new sections. the sources aren't reliable on the religion, i gave you two examples on those, why just two? those were the only two with sources, the rest didn't have any, and you agreed with me on removing those two, but not completely, why? you realize that the inspiration and influence are basically taking over the article itself, when those small pieces of information can still be used in sections that already exist outside of the inspiration and influence. and again, although there are small pieces of good information, there is alot of bad sourcing in the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Manual of Style (writing about fiction), critical attention is a perfectly acceptable part of an article. Per the editing policy, it is best to try to preserve as much as possible when reworking articles.  "should every piece of information automatically become reliable because it's from a reliable source?" Yes, assuming the reliable source is an expert in the field they're discussing. Just because Anno's the creator, doesn't mean he is the be-all and end-all about how his work is interpreted, and if there's literature discussing the religious implications of NGE, then we're not doing the right thing by Wikipedia if we exclude it on purpose, or summarise it to extinction, as you seem to be suggesting. --Malkinann (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I'm not going to waste my time any longer with you, Bread Ninja. And I can't see where this is going. You really aren't here to listen to others. You keep saying "trivial", but you still don't explain why it would be trivial. Despite what I have said about it being important themes of Eva. You keep saying "wp isn't a news source", and I still don't see why this discussion would have anything to do with "news". You don't have to be "convinced" by the sources ! Again WP isn't here to convince or tell the "truth", it's here to report what various reliable sources have said on a subject, whether or not the contributors agree with the ideas. And yes, contradiction is good, because it shows the variety of opinions there can be on a subject, which is precisely the aim of WP. And no, it's not because reliable sources contradict each other that what they say would be "trivial". You got it all wrong.

I'm not wasting my time any longer. For the last time, read WP:V and WP:NPOV.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

sigh...i swear it's like you guys skim through it and don't read it at all......wiki isn't here to report anything, it's just here to give the information. Again, like i said, we dont have to remove the information, just the sections, the valid information can stay.....sigh...different interpretation s can be kept but not be said as "fact". i gave a perfect example on that. it's like how articles have 3 reviews but don't ever use the references added, they just sit there to keep it notable. same thing with this, you don't have to give overly detail info about the theories and religion references (which again, hold no stability and might be challenged to be deleted). you guys also seem to dodge the end of evangelion example....

sigh...maybe i imply to much that i have to explain every little detail. why trivial? the information isn't important to the series itself or reader. it's merely listing a possible theory that may or may not be true (you have yet to show me a WP to prove that the information doesnt have to be true). it's extra interpretations and theories other people have made, yes it contradicts the creators thoughts, it can stay, BUT you guys make it sound like these mere interpretations are as pure as fact, also these theories and religion references do not not keep NGE article at a neutral prose,. I suggested that we can explain these interpretations, but listing references to the theories of Carl horn or religion based on the series itself isn't something we should enter just because he's reliable, not everything should be added, even if verifiable. Sigh...i was in the assumption that everyone knew about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CONFLICT.

again the information can stay...just be summarized. we don't have to list say everything the source can give, we can summarize. but i still think that the sections have to go, not the information, we can move the information somewhere more appropriate. remember sections, not information, just sections themselves. (I'm just repeating since some of you still think i want to remove ALL information)

The one and only section i do believe we need to remove without any information being moved is the religion. the sources themselves only "hint" but do not "confirm" the information being a direct link to the references. so it's original research. folken de fanel, you agreed on this.

folken de fanel believed there were more references, and therefore thought those two little pieces were only to be removed, but the problem is that those were the only parts that had references, after that the thing didn't have any reference. so i believe we should remove the section completely, because it doesn't have have any sources confirm it true. i don't see why this specific area is a problem. religion holds no sources to back itself up and only list reference to religion. We cant just list religion references from a source who has also written about NGE, unless she wrote about religion and NGE in the same article. (did she?)Bread Ninja (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "We cant just list religion references from a source who has also written about NGE, unless she wrote about religion and NGE in the same article. (did she?)" - if you mean Susan J. Napier, yes she did. I don't know what your proposals are any more, it's too confusing to follow.  We have shown that much of the information in the section is perfectly valid information on how Evangelion has been interpreted. --Malkinann (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

sigh...let me make it clear. remove the sections, keep information and move it and asummarize it. Religion section holds no source to keep it there. very few but those dont confirm the information on that section everything else in the religion section needs to be deleted.

that's it.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure I understand. What would be preserved from the current section?  Why does it even need to be moved or changed into another section, as it's largely from reliable sources?  What would be removed when summarising?  --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

before we remove, we summarize, anything that sounds too lengthly or something that's overly detail about a certain theory or certain interpretations (i believe carl horn's is). then move it into a new section or another section that already exist that we may feel it's appropiate. like "interpretaitons and theories" basically a section dedicated for that so readers know they are theories (not absolute fact). as for religion, they hold "some" reliable sources, but again, the reliable sources arent really helpin gthe section, the section has claims and the reliable sources dont confirm these claims to be true.s remove it copletely is my suggestion.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes detail is needed in order to present the idea correctly. I don't know why you are hung up on "theories vs. absolute fact" - we're writing about fiction here.  I would suggest you try reading further on Evangelion before removing anything, as being familiar with the subject will help you to be able to see what is good in the article.  I believe the publication by Tsuribe has been cited as a source in an academic paper.  --Malkinann (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's fiction, but what's wrong with the proposal? i mean, yes we can keep interpretation and theories, but the way it's said in here, it makes people sound like it's fact, which would annoy alot of people. We can word these much differently to make it sound like these are reliable interpretations and theories. and this is the problem, instead of trying to understand, you suddenly shut yourself from the idea. tell me why this wouldnt work? INspiration and nfluence, that title suggest that these interpretaitons are exactly what the creator intended for, when it's not. informatin can contradict at some point but they cant be categorized in the same section. cant you mention that they are just mere interperetaitons? I know, i get it, interpretations arent always true, and that they can still be kept, but the problem is the wording. sigh...what's so worng to make the wording right?

and no one seems to answer the religion one right... Bread Ninja (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I still don't understand your proposal. You want to take the subsections "Psychology and psychoanalytic theory", "Religion" and "Fiction and philosophy" from the "Inspiration and symbolism" section and retool them into a "Themes" section, like that in To Kill a Mockingbird or Romeo and Juliet? --Malkinann (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

summarize the information, (as in delete was is un necessary) and then move it to a more appropiate section. because it doesnt trully belong in the "inspiration and influence" because it's neither inspiration or influence from the show, just theories and interpretaitons. and yes my proposal is similar to Romio and juliet.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you go about summarising it? --Malkinann (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

well of course, i would just like to delete the religion section, the sources do not prove most of the information to be correct. The only thing that has a source to proving it to be reliable information is the statement about it is judeo-christian and that the christian symbolism holds no particular meaning. that being said, i would like to move those two pieces of information to the very top paragraph and the rest of the information to be removed. as for the Psychology and psychoanalytic theory i believe there are a few pieces of information that can be removed, like information that has no source to back itself. Also there seems to be a lot of quoting in the article. it would be best to remove it as a quote and just paraphrase the information, not just for that section, it would be better to do the same for the whole article. even though i still find these theories pretty trivial, seems to act as FAQ or some kind of information suited more to fans than normal wiki reader. It also doesnt really go with WP:MOS-ANIME

anyways, as for fiction and philosophy i would really consider maybe just removing what isn't sourced. just out of the blue, i would like to propose removing End of evangelion section from the article since there is already another section for it. what do you think?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't delete the religion section. Folken de Fanel told you that these sections don't have to be the objective truth, they merely have to be verifiable.  So we can say, 'although Anno said he put religion in for decoration, critics have interpreted the religious themes in Evangelion as follows:' and keep the rest of the religion section.  --Malkinann (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

they have to be true. or at least verifiable, they are most definitely not. i already told you, the information on the religion section compared to the sources they have, are not proven to be true (or proven true by the source). the sources don't share the same information the religion section has. I'll give you an example of what the religion section already shows. The second Angel, Lilith is shown crucified. In Jewish folklore, Lilith is the first wife of Adam, and in some works of popular culture, the first vampire. for example, the religion section says '''Lilith is impaled with a spear named the "Lance of Longinus", used to pierce the side of Jesus during his crucifixion. Lilith represents the first woman and mother of humanity; traditionally she is identified as being the mother of all demons (who are called in general the "Lilin" or "Lilim"). In Evangelion, she may even be the source of humanity itself, as Kaworu identifies Lilith as the source of the Lilim (humanity) in episode 24, "The Final Angel" and the source says "Adam, that from which we came. Must one who is born from Adam return to Adam, even though it would destroy man. Wait this isn't. Lilith! I see, I understand now. The Lilim, Lilith."''', the source does not prove that the information on the religion section is correct. you would have known what i meant if you looked at it instead of assuming it's correct. most of it is like that, mentioning the tree of life is on the ceiling, trivial stuff. Yes i would like to say 'although Anno said he put religion in for decoration, critics have interpreted the religious themes in Evangelion as follows:' there but there's just isn't information that has been proven to be true by the sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you see the good in the article and preserve it? I don't think the whole section needs to be deleted, as you seem to be proposing. --Malkinann (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

and can you tell me why it should stay? the information is not proven to be correct by the sources, so it must be original research, why not remove that information and section completely. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's possible to find sources. It is likely that the various reliable sources we have mentionned the religious aspects, so before deleting, first we have to try to find sources. If sources cannot be found, then it is original research. However the religious elements caused such controversy that it is reasonable to think at least one reliable source speaks of it, and so it is reasonable to wait before deleting everything.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked for sources, i have found none, so all that time looking gave up and posted it here. We still have to remove the references since they do not play any part in the section. I'll leave this up to you guys because I looked enough, i looked in google, wikia and see what sources they have, i searched in ask and bing. it's not that I'm being lazy, it's that I'm giving up. you guy's try to find this information, anyways, the rest of my proposal (summarizing quotes and removing additional explanations not sourced) can still be added. Still removing the sections themselves is an easy task if we were to create a new section "interpretations and theories". But you all seem really hung up whenever you hear the words merge or remove. I still find the religion section very trivial, there's no theory in it, there's no interpretation, it's just listing references, it's not proving anything other than that those references are there, they hold no importance Bread Ninja (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

the article is one of the most horrible articles i have ever seen, everything is scattered and not very well organized. some of this stuff is so complicated, i dont know what the heck i'm reading.

Did any of you find any reliable sources yet?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One question
Is a Neon Genesis Evangelion Timeline really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not. As I've suggested before, we could probably merge it into the franchise article; but I think first we need a more compact presentation. It doesn't contain all that much information, but because it uses bullet points and sections, it takes up an immense amount of vertical space.
 * If you could put it into a tabular format, that'd make it much easier to see whether it'd merge well or no, and be a constructive contribution. --Gwern (contribs) 15:25 19 September 2009 (GMT)

i'll see, i might put a proposal in there.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

References (bibliography)
Bibliography from Comic art of Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America through 2000, by John A. Lent :


 * 1995 "21st Century Evangelion", Mangazine, May, pg 14
 * 1995 "A New Direction for Robot Anime?" Animerica, 3:6 pg 17
 * 1995 "Gainax Returns to Anime with Shinseiki Evangelion", Animerica 3:2 pg 14
 * 1996 "Anime series roundup OAV -- Neon Genesis Evangelion" Animerica 4:12 pg 8-9
 * 1996 "Avenging Angels: Neon Genesis Evangelion", Animerica 4:3 pg 12
 * 1996 "Neon Genesis Evangelion", Tsao Sheng-Te, The Rose, October, pg6-9
 * 1997 "Angel's on the silver screen: Neon Genesis Evangelion", Animerica 5:1 pg 14
 * 1997 "Neon Genesis Evangelion", Animerica 5:6, pg 22
 * 1997 "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Adapting the Manga", Animerica 5:8 pg 58
 * 1997 "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Genesis 0:1", John Beam, Animation Planet (Summer) pg 14
 * 1997 "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Genesis 0:4" John Beam, Animation Planet pg 13-14 (Fall)
 * 1997 "On the Evangelion Movie", Takashi Oshiguchi, Animerica 5:5 pg 59
 * 1997 "Shinseiki Ebuangerion no Baransu Shiito", Hiroyuki Arai, Pop Culture Critique 0, pg 67-79
 * 1997 "The Mask or The Face: Neon Genesis Evangelion", Animerica 5:2 pg 70
 * 1999 "End of Evangelion: The Story Ain't Over When the 17th Angel Dies", L. Jagi Lamplighter, Summer, pg 42-43, AnimeFantastique
 * 1999 "Eva Deals", Manga Max, November, pg 7
 * 1999 "Excerpts from Encyclopedia Evangelion", L. Jagi Lamplighter, Summer, pg 35-41, AnimeFantastique
 * 1999 "LM HG Evangelion Unit 05", Adam Rehorn, Animerica 7:9, pg 81
 * 1999 "Neon Genesis Evangelion", Brown, Animerica 7:9 pg 80
 * 1999 "Passionate Attachments and Traumatic Displacements in Neon Genesis Evangelion", paper for Association for Asian Studies, Boston Mass., march 11. Mark Driscoll (email apparently is mdriscol@email.unc.edu)
 * 1999 "Spooky Janeway", Manga Max, January, pg 5
 * 1999 "Stillness and (e) Motion in Neon Genesis Evangelion", William Routt, paper for Society for Animation Studies, Brisbane Australia, august 5 (Routt's website is http://www.routt.net/Bill/ )
 * 1999 "The Aesthetics of Excess in Neon Genesis Evangelion", Miyao Daisuke, paper, "Visions, Revisions, Incorporations" conference, Montreal Canada, march 27 (Daisuke's contact info: http://caps.uoregon.edu/profile.php?id=41)
 * 1999 "Welcome to the Apocalypse", Manga Max, Peter J. Evans, December, pg 32-26
 * 1999 "What's It All About Shinji?" Jonathan Clements, Manga Max, February, pg 30-31
 * 1999 "Whon Angels Destroy: Neon Genesis Evangelion. Fighting the War for Humankind's Soul" [sic], L. Jagi Lamplighter, summer, pg 32-40 AnimeFantastique
 * 2000 "End Of Evangelion: The Theatrical Release", Anders Moe, The Rose, October, pg 9
 * 2000 "Neon Genesis Evangelion S", Ernest Ng, The Rose, June, pg 24-25
 * 2000 "The End of Evangelion; Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Hate Hideaki Anno", Laura Bissey, Sequential Tart, July 
 * 2000 "When Angels Come to Earth: Neon Genesis Evangelion" Sequential Tart July, Laura Donnelly 

Particularly good would be the 3 or 4 academic papers, and the AnimeFantastique & Animerica news articles or reviews. I don't suppose anyone here has them? --Gwern (contribs) 22:22 31 October 2009 (GMT)

Thank you Gwern this will be very useful, though its actually because we have to be critical: we have to thoroughly scrutinize each of these to see if any has actual "merit"; having a list is a good start, but we'll be striking things off the list as we go (i.e. like when I actually sat down, read Napier's "article" on Evangelion, and it turned out she didn't know the first thing about it)....part of my overall realization that "far from "Everything that can be said about Eva has been said, we just had a small smattering of articles and none of them knew what they were talking about; the show may as well have come out last year, the so-called "analysis" of the past 13 years was worthless". Further, note that NONE of these articles were published before the official English dub release of End of Evangelion, the real ending, in 2002. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * None of them are post 2000 simply because that's when they were compiled; I've emailed the author asking an updated edition is planned, but I'm guessing it's unlikely. And the very early '95 articles may be more valuable than one would expect, since they might contain preliminary information or quotes which give insight into how Eva changed during production. (I saw this done with Star Wars a year or two ago, and the book answered many of my suspicions by drawing on very early or contemporary sources.) --Gwern (contribs) 23:30 3 November 2009 (GMT)


 * The Rose was a fanzine run by a group called "Anime Hasshin" (founded as "Hasshin R.I." in January 1987) whose editor was Lorraine Savage. Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A little. I found a partial online archive; apparently Savage's boast of winning awards was true: http://web.archive.org/web/20050308114501/http://home.comcast.net/~hasshin/about.html#award (The other website for Anime Hasshin/The Rose, is either lacking in content, or it's blocked: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tiac.net/users/hasshin/ )
 * And John here http://www.animenation.net/blog/2009/05/14/ask-john-how-is-doujinshi-received-in-america-part-1/ seems to imply that The Rose was one of the first American fanzines, although Watching anime, reading manga: 25 years of essays and reviews lists The Rose as coming after a few fanzines & commercial magazines.
 * And here's a former contributor: http://letsanime.blogspot.com/2008/02/anime-zines-of-late-80s.html
 * "Speaking of long running zines, here's the first issue of THE ROSE, the newsletter of the anime club Anime Hasshin, which ran for 64 issues over 14 years. Lorraine Savage spearheaded the club, one of the first independent national anime clubs to spring up out of frustration with those jerks in Texas and California. Over the years Lorraine would feature art and articles from hundreds of fans, connect tape traders to spread the anime wealth, and generally act as a merciless Godfather crushing all who stood in her path of anime domination. Just kidding about that last part. I produced lots of terrible fan art for The Rose."
 * Confusingly, one of the awards was called the Osamu Tezuka award but apparently this was an American convention award different from the famous Osamu Tezuka award one would expect. --Gwern (contribs) 20:26 5 November 2009 (GMT)


 * OK, I've sent off ILL requests for the Mangazine & Manga Max & Animation Planet articles, Hiroyuki Arai's article and Bill Routt's article. I'm waiting on replies to my emails to Miyao Daisuke & Mark Driscoll. I will probably batch-request the Animerica articles when my thread with Carl Horn dies on the Eva ML, and likewise I may or may not get access to the AnimeFantastique articles that way. Which leaves all The Rose articles; they may or may not be in the Internet Archive if I look harder, but I'm not sure I want to sink some more hours into looking since we have no consensus about whether it's a RS or not. --Gwern (contribs) 18:15 12 November 2009 (GMT)


 * Stillness and style in Neon Genesis Evangelion -- --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, now you link me, after my ILL comes in! (and the others as well, though still nothing from Daisuke or Driscoll) The ILL was still worth doing, though: it has the footnotes/bibliography and indications of the intended screenshots (though the photocopy is so dark you can't actually see them...). --Gwern (contribs) 05:17 16 November 2009 (GMT)


 * Apparently the Mechademia series have a couple of papers on Evangelion. --Malkinann (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'll order those 3 as well. (Can't seem to find indices for them, but the TOCs look like they're worth reading even if I can't dig anything Eva out.)
 * (Fun note: the Mechademia style guide uses Broderick's article as an example for formatting Web citations.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:24 17 November 2009 (GMT)


 * Google books suggests that Anime Intersections (a book by Dani Cavallaro, who is I believe an Italian writer) has some material on End of Evangelion. It's in English too.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've requested that too. Google Snippets confusingly shows me only 3 hits, but one of them seems to be a section title? --Gwern (contribs) 20:32 19 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I think it might be like The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, giving a precis of several series and their film techniques. Even if it's brief, it might have some useful information.  --Malkinann (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Need for a peaceful resolution: the value of sources, and the limits of wikipedia
I fully agree with Gwern's commendable job of finding all writing on Evangelion that we can find. However, keep in mind:


 * Susan Napier is not an "Evangelion expert" and has never proven she knows anything about the series: Gwern and others were there when I put up a review of her article (now archived) and when i actually sat down to read it, it seemed like an insultingly casual skimming of the series with basic factual errors and flippant attitude towards End of Evangelion. It wasn't very well sourced, and was really just Napier pushing off her own opinions.


 * Napier's article was bad, but her book Anime from Akira to Howl’s Moving Castle: Experiencing Japanese Animation has a few pages on Eva which struck me as being remarkably better than her article. (See http://www.scribd.com/doc/17713608/NAPIER-Susan-Anime-From-Akira-to-Princess-Mononoke for a copy; the main Eva section starts on page 97.) Perhaps not perfect, since her interpretation of the TV ending seems incomplete, but nowhere as bad as the article "When the Machines Stop". I suppose that's what happens when you aren't trying to force through a theory; just another reason I'm glad I never went into literature. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 16 November 2009 (GMT)


 * No one has ever proven to me that Mari Kotani knows the first thing about Evangelion...so why do other secondary sources, like Napier, get considered "reliable soruces" for citing her?


 * When does anyone claim Napier is a RS because she cites Kotani? The only discussion resembling that was for Broderick's essay. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 16 November 2009 (GMT)


 * An "interpretation" widely divergent -- to the point of being contradictory -- with the creator's statements, no matter how well sourced the interpretation, is simply wrong. For example, if one were to say "Evangelion has a Marxist theme"....them make various citations to Marxist theory books...that isn't a "sourced" article at all; all it did was define what Marxism is.  Even if we were to literally say "Karl Marx said his opinion that Evangelion is Marxist"...again, all we have is an opinion that includes a lot of sourced definitions.  Either way, this directly contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV rules


 * If we said Karl Marx said that Eva was Marxist, then either he did and it's worth including because he is a very important zombie, or he didn't actually say that and NPOV doesn't even enter into the question - it would violate WP's 'no lying' policy as well as V. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 16 November 2009 (GMT)


 * One bad article sourcing another bad article doesn't make a good article; two wrongs don't make a right.

An example one of my professors taught me is the example of Lot's daughters:

After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot escaped with his two daughters to the mountains outside the cities. The trio were convinced that God hadn't just destroyed those two cities, so great was the apparent devastation, but that he surely must have wiped out all of humanity except for them. "Daughter A" developed the following line of reasoning: 1-God has destroyed all of the human race except for us 2-we need to preserve and continue the human race 3-therefore we must have sex with a man and get pregnant 4-unfortunately, the only man left alive is our own father 5-therefore, for the good of the species, we must have sex with and become impregnated by our own father. "Daughter A" then goes to "Daughter B" and presents her argument. "Daughter B" admits that its a rational conclusion, based on the evidence that God appears to have killed off the rest of the human race. "Daughter B" this also has sex with and becomes impregnated by their father, using the further justification that "Daughter A" believed in and originated this theory, lending it more "support": the moral of the story, as it were, is this:  "Daughter A"'s logic was entirely sound, but based on unsound evidence. "Daughter B"'s error was compounded by the fact that she took Daughter A's unproven theory at face value. No matter how good Daughter A's logic, or rhetoric, or sourcing was, she made the fundamental original mistake that God had not actually killed off the entire human race, but she had jumped to that conclusion. And no matter how you argue it, her faulty logic (faulty because it was based on bad evidence in the first place) led her to getting impregnated by her own father when she did not actually need to in order to "preserve the human race".


 * This is perhaps not the best place to get into philosophy. (The daughters' mistake is quite defensible with appropriate choices of utility functions. And observing no one is in fact weak evidence for there is no one, in Bayesian terms; likewise, given the Flood, God destroying 2 cities is weak - or perhaps even strong - evidence for a global destruction.) --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 16 November 2009 (GMT)

Now lets shift the names and labels:

"Fan A" writes a badly sourced paper, more of an "opinion" on Evangelion. "Fan B" then uses A's paper as a "source". Should we then, consider Eva B's paper to be any less ridiculous than Fan A's, just because it was "used sources"? Sources of what quality? Was the overall argument accurate?

Let us shift the names and labels again:

"Hippie 1" thinks Lord of the Rings is about smoking pot and the Vietnam Draft. "Hippie 2" then sources the argument of "Hippie 1", and says that his paper is "academically sound" because it "has sources" even though that source was Hippie 1, who didn't really even use "evidence" so much as his own slanted beliefs. Tolkien, creator of the story and still alive at the time, is able to flatly state that no, LOTR was never about the Vietnam Draft given that it was written by a British World War I veteran during World War II. Do we keep sourcing the hippies? Or did we gradually just stop listening to them?

Shifting labels once again:

"Mari Kotani" writes a badly sourced opinion-piece about her own drastically divergent theory about Evangelion that does not reflect the actual series. "Susan Napier" then writes a paper using "Mari Kotani" as a source: do we consider Susan Napier's paper somehow "better" because it used a source?...even though that source -- Mari Kotani -- didn't know what she was talking about or was blatantly in contradiction of the facts?

The fact is, there's a circle of writers who made several...some would call them "articles" on Evangelion, but they have severe flaws and most often, sourced *each other* to try to lend each other academic credibility. They have gamed the system in order to dupe us into accepting wild theories as fact.


 * Yet, somehow, whenever I suggest defensive editing to take what is good and leave what is bad, you always object. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 16 November 2009 (GMT)

The limits of Wikipedia
The sad fact is this: Wikipedia is not a fansite: it is meant purely for the cold storage of NPOV "facts". I am personally disappointed in this, but its what we've got.


 * This puts limits on us, yes. We will never be able to host fan-translations, or use lots of images, or include dubious items like the Evangelion Kaibunsho. But we can still do a lot within our limits (look at how much we already have), and there are many advantages to working on Wikipedia rather than evageeks.org's wiki. --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)

For example, look at recent South Park episode "Dances with Smurfs": Cartman (standing in for Glen Beck) makes a book that is really just a lot of propaganda and lies against Wendy. But he artfully phrases it in ways such as "Some say that Wendy wants to kill all the smurfs? Does she really?"....things like people on Fox News who phrase leading questions about Obama like "does Obama hate freedom?".....which is really the same line of rhetoric as asking a man "did you stop beating your wife today?"...in which its such a leading question that it distorts the entire argument.

Furthermore, we run the danger of "teaching the controversy" if we give equal time to theories we know are badly sourced and non-Objective. Gwern you yourself acknowledged that Napier's arguments are severely flawed.


 * Yes, but we're not actually giving equal time. Even if I get around to making full use of Kotani's book summary (or her full paper if I ever get a copy), I wouldn't import her theories wholesale. --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)

The simple matter is that Wikipedia's rules don't allow this. All of it is too NPOV. We need to gut the articles.


 * I assume you mean POV here and in the following? --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)

The most we can do, what we're trying to do, is to provide a list of articles and sources to provide readers access to them and then let them decide. We should phrase this as at best a one sentence (maybe a few) comment that "there are some wide interpretations of the series"....followed by a string of 20 reference links.


 * You know as well as I do that this would be useless. Most of the sources we could link to - if we could link to them at all - are copyvios, which strictly speaking we aren't suppose to link to. --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)

So No, the only statements we are allowed to use as "fact" are those of the actual creators....its NPOV to give "equal time" to articles that directly contradict this established fact by actually including material from those articles in here: that is, a full paragraph to counterbalance each paragraph by Anno: we *will* have to include them, to be NPOV ourselves, but all will have to be relegated to a list of references for further reading at the end. It's the only NPOV thing to do.

On the other side: Bread Ninja I agree with much of what you have said, but really, trying to paraphrase articles or take small quotes is ultimately NPOV as well: look at say, "The Bible" and how its been used as the justification for all sorts of contradictory things: two people from opposing sides can source the *same* Anno interview to support their argument, but artfully citing only selective, filtered words and sentences out of context; and paraphrasing it distorts the meaning.

Conversely, using block quotes is also NPOV, because it gives "equal time" to any random fan with an unsourced article (Napier).

The cold reality is that this is the kind of thing fansites are for: we should focus on finding every Eva article ever written...to incorporate "solid facts" about the series (i.e. "I ad-libbed that line in episode 11" is a "fact" from the cast&crew) into articles...while essays, all essays (unfortunately, even the few we know to be very accurate)...must be regulated to just a "list for further reading"


 * The distinction is not hard and fast. What do you consider solid facts and what essays? Should we not mention the Anno's revenge theory in EoE because there is no hard fact of it? --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)

I'm sorry to set this in stone but I've been thinking this over in the past 3 weeks we've been arguing about this, and looking over the rules, and I really can find no other solution that still fulfills Wikipedia's NPOV rules. And anything else would lead to a total breakdown of civility: choosing any "right" side would alienate everyone, while saying "many theories could be correct and here they are" lets the Crazies in. We're simply not a fansite. We're not a "fan book devoted to the series" like that Harry Potter guy who wrote his own book then got sued by Rowling. We're striving for something that they just don't allow on a place like this.


 * Strangely, the rest of Wikipedia works on the 'many theories could be correct and here they are' model. That is, in fact, the historical essence of NPOV. --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)

So the only thing we can do is gut the articles. Mentally envision an "NGE" article that is half as long as it currently is.

Can everyone agree on this? It is the only way forward.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You know everyone can't agree on it. The way forward is to find as many sources as possible (just about every claim in our articles has an origin somewhere), arrange for backups and archives, and patiently go through each source adding claims and theories to our articles. Wholesale butchering does nothing. --Gwern (contribs) 17:12 16 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I don't see the need of such a discussion. If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it. Some of the principles of WP don't seem to satisfy you, unfortunately you won't be able to overrule fundamental community decisions just by yourself in a anime discussion.
 * WP:RS is simple, if a source is 3rd party published, reliable and written by a known author in the field, then it is acceptable in an article. Susan Napier is a professor of Japanese Literature and Culture at the University of Texas at Austin, and also known for having published various succesful books about anime culture (thus perfectly known and relevant in the field of anime studies), her work on Eva was published in Science Fiction Studies, an academic journal published since 1973 by the DePauw University (3rd party published and peer-reviewed). She's thus a perfectly reliable source for the Eva articles. Mari Kotani is known for various translations of academic works, and various anime, fantasy and SF critics, she even won a Nihon SF Taisho Award, and her work on Evangelion was 3rd party-published. She's a reliable source.
 * That you don't like the conclusions of their works is irrelevant. They are reliable authors, and as such, their opinion is valuable enough to be included in Wikipedia, no matter how they possibly contradict statements from the Eva staff. Yes, they develop their opinion, and that's exactly what is asked of an academic critique.
 * Also, don't forget that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if the views of Napier or Kotani stray from the disputable hints of answers we have about mere plot points, they provide commentaries over general themes, their significance for the authors and for the audience, their influence over future productions etc. Comparing such analyses to the fact of knowing various vague, plot-only answers (that came 10 years after the original broadcast) makes absolutely no sense. Any critical work on any piece of literature is doomed to, one day, be contradictory to the true intentions of the author, simply because there is no way to be inside the mind of the author. So yes, critical work relies on interpretation, perception and subjectivity. If you deny this right to Napier, then you'll have the huge task to deny this right to every critical author included on Wikipedia, and you'll face a very strong opposition. So what others won't let you do elsewhere, won't be done on Eva articles.
 * You also seem to twist the meaning of WP:NPOV. As long as something is reliable, then it must be included in equal proportion to other views. The personal opinion of WP contributors on critical works cannot be taken into account. You say Napier's article is flawed because it pushes her own opinions. This is wrong. Critical works have to rely on subjectivity. Being flawed is not being subjective, neither being contradictory to your own opinion. Don't forget you don't have the monopoly over interpretations of Evangelion. A source is flawed according to WP if it isn't reliable. Which is not the case of the sources you're refering to.
 * To conclude, what you're suggesting is to massively violate the principle of neutrality. This is simply unacceptable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Note that merely claiming peer review is not an indication that any meaningful peer review happens, or that the journal is at all respected." -- "they provide commentaries over general themes, their significance for the authors" -- ...isn't...Hideaki Anno, the one who is in a position to say what the themes and significance of his own creation were?.....I *do not* have a monopoly on Evangelion interpretations...but Hideaki Anno does; objectively, certain interpretations of Evangelion are simply "wrong"...though I'm in no more position to interpret this than the rest of you, so I'm stuck.
 * In that case, shifting focus...Kotani and Napier pass wikipedia's "reliable source" test: I'm not going to argue against those (all I ask is that we phrase it as "according to Napier" not "Evangelion is..." (then give Napier's view as fact). So there's no fighting that, yes. But this leads to the next question: what other "papers" pass the reliability test? Only Kotani and Napier have been demonstrated.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * V, do you really expect me to go through every single book and article in NGE TV and say 'Oh, Leiji is a professor at X, and Yamashita&co. are an official anthology, and the Greenfield claim is cited to a Google Video, and Azuma is a long-time journalist for this Japanese magazine' and so on?
 * Like with Bread Ninja: point out a paper you think wouldn't pass the tests, or GTFO. --Gwern (contribs) 00:06 18 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I wish you wouldn't phrase that that strongly, but you're misunderstanding and think that I actually mean something worse: professors, anthologies, anything in a newspaper gets in, obviously, but some of this stuff is just "guy who posted several paragraphs on his website" and didn't even get 3rd party printed. Yes, I should point out specific ones that I'm taking issue with. No, I didn't mean something nearly that drastic or strict :) Okay, the one that's particularly irking me is..."Anime's Apocalypse: Neon Genesis Evangelion as Millennarian Mecha" ...it doesn't seem to cite sources well and I'm confused as to if the "publication" it was in was more of a fanzine-type thing. What makes it keep-able?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I phrase it that strongly because I am a little exasperated by this point and because I know you'll understand me aright.
 * As for Broderick: it doesn't seem too bad on the sources (how many academics are clueful enough to use Anno's "What were we trying to make here?" as their plot summary?), and you already know that it was published in Intersections, which is an open access online journal, which has been supported by 2 universities so far, and says they're peer-reviewed. I originally thought it was a book collection, so I searched Amazon for the exact name and found 47 books who had text citing or mentioning it. So... --Gwern (contribs) 04:15 19 November 2009 (GMT)

Gwern, your exasperation stems from that you are trying to convince me that a collection of essays filled with factual errors, are made "correct" by citing each other. You can cite that wikipedia's rules can be played in such a way that I won't try to stop anyone from loading in these things...but do you...honestly think Broderick said anything even remotely worthwhile? He's just some random guy who mailed in a poorly researched essay to a third-rate "journal", which "peer-reviewed" it only in the sense that it made sure that he actually bothered to cite "sources": he could have cited a telephone book.

We don't have...13 years worth of "meaningful academic papers": most of them are meaningless, contradicted by the statements of the series creators. Why do they bother citing certain sources, if in the end, the argument is "as fans, secondary sources are allowed to make interpretations different from those of the author?".......technically speaking, so long as a paper was fully "sourced" (if only to define terms)...what if one of these articles said that Evangelion was about...I don't know, Sailor Moon? It wasn't a strong argument, and it was from such a lousy "journal" that would run anything, that it can hardly be called "peer review".


 * Except one of the articles wasn't about Evangelion=Sailor Moon. 'What if the New York Times advocated eating babies with red wine? What then, huh?' --Gwern (contribs) 21:34 28 November 2009 (GMT)

Gwern, the purpose of these articles is to describe "Evangelion" by Hideaki Anno. Not Sean McCoy's rambling theories, no matter how well sourced. Random fans can't elevator their crazed opinions by spending 2 hours properly formatting their sourced footnotes of the kabbalah then mailing their fan-essays in to third rate online journals. For all intents and purposes they might as well have been self-published. Why are you so driven to include these articles? They don't meet the criteria.


 * I've explained it several times. "For there is no error so crooked, but it hath in it some lines of truth; Nor is any poison so deadly, that it serveth not some wholesome use." "No book was so bad but some good might be got out of it.” --Gwern (contribs) 21:34 28 November 2009 (GMT)

"How many academics are clueful enough to use ANno's "What were we trying to make here?"....that's the point. Lets examine the mechanics of this: does every online journal actually fact-check each essay? What does "peer review" mean? Even if Intersections is a good journal, their "peer review" extends to making sure Broderick didn't flat out make things up, but used footnotes. Broderick could more or less say anything he wanted, and they got rubberstamped.

"The reason no one understands the series" is because fanboys are allowed to mail in whatever theories they want into "articles", and have them taken at face value: just as the hippies had to be thrown out of LOTR fandom, we never really had the courage to stand up and say "this is simply wrong". By that logic...do you honestly think Sean McCoy is an Evangelion expert? ADV sort of got duped into letting him talk on their DVD commentary...does that give him the "validation" to be an "authority"? No, it means ADV made a mistake in trusting him, and we shouldn't perpetuate what we know is a mistake.


 * I think no one understands the series because the academics have pressure to fit Eva to their theories (Kotani, Napier) or simply lack many of the references you and I take for granted - all the quotes and statements by Anno and other parties. I think Tuzurumaki's RCB interview alone would affect academic interpretations quite a bit if they only knew and used it. --Gwern (contribs) 21:34 28 November 2009 (GMT)

I can't stop you from putting these articles in on your own, and you can quote enough notability rules and turn them inside out that really I've accepted that I can't stop it so I won't try. But really......do you honestly think these articles actually had anything "correct" to say about the series? They're mostly unsourced fanboy theorization that was able to dupe several third-tier journals into accepting them as fact, with "peer review" standards which basically just checked to see that it was formatted properly. Do you honestly think this theorization had anything of value to say about the series?


 * See my earlier comment. No paper so bad...

Do you personally agree with Broderick's opinion that the series actually had something to do with Kabbalah?...I'm confused and worried that you actually do. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's look at what Broderick says. He is clueful enough to cite Anno, to correctly characterize reactions to the TV ending, quotes the key quote (incidentally, I notice no replies to any of my Eva ML emails), and so on, so he deserves a close read.


 * "The series is replete with apocalyptic references drawn directly from Persian (Zoroastra), Jewish (Kabbal, Torah), Christian (Old and New Testaments) and Gnostic (Apocrypha) sacred writings. The allusions to this particular imagined apocalyptic schema, which is at once both linear and cyclical, are more than throwaway gestures to knowing fandom. These icons, nomenclatures and beings are iterated across the series in a manner that slowly unveils their mystical and secret semiotics. Just as Jewish numerological mysticism informs the Evangelion epistemology, so too do the poetics, typologies and dream-state transcendences of Christianity's Book of Revelation imbue the narrative and action."


 * The first sentence is unobjectionable. The Semitic religions do have a combination of linear & cyclical eschatology, and the sources listed are correct. A key claim is that the references aren't merely 'throwaway gestures to knowing fandom'. That there is meaning to them is a very old & common position shared by such insightful commenters as Carl Horn, so even if we take unquestioningly at face value the Anno & Tsurumaki quotes on the allusions being just cool, we can hardly criticize Broderick for this.
 * Nor can we criticize the idea that numerology plays a role - most of the numbers carry some message, from the 666 firewall to the 108 shell companies of Marduk.
 * And I wouldn't want to defend the idea that nothing of Eva's style or plot comes from the Book of Revelations, although I would agree it's not a major enough source to be said to 'imbue the narrative and action'. But these are differences of degree, not kind.
 * 23, 25, and most of 24 are straightforward tracking of allusions & references. (BreadNinja, are you watching? You want refs for the symbolism & religious references, there they are, right where they've always been, right where you've claimed to've read.)
 * The one objectionable part of 24 is


 * "So Anno's project is a postmodernist retelling of the Genesis myth, as his series title implies—Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is a new myth of origin, complete with its own deluge, Armageddon, apocalypse and transcendence."


 * It most certainly is postmodern, and the name does quite obviously lead to such a thought, and surely the name choice was deliberate. It's not too hard to see this as true - EoE definitely ends with a very different world starting up, and SEELE's planned hive mind could fairly be called a new birth. The deluge is quite obvious - we're told how much of the world was flooded by 2nd Impact? As is armageddon/apocalypse. Transcendence, of some kind, for some time, is true in every iteration. The pieces all fit, but again, a difference of emphasis - I'm not sure seeing Eva as a retelling of Genesis->Judgement Day is the best way, and definitely not the deepest way, but it is a valid way.
 * Now we come to 26 & 28 (27 is material outside of Eva; it looks right to me though - the atomic bomb has always been on the minds of Japan).


 * "The prophetic pathway linking the series' apocalyptic narrative finds its iconic representation in the 'Systema Sephirotica', seen during the opening credit sequence and displayed above Commander Ikari's NERV office. It depicts the Jewish Kabbalistic rendering of creation as an inverted tree of life indicating the pathway of the material world to the spiritual realm. When contrasted with SEELE's Dead Sea Scrolls' prophecy these two conflicting charts to eternal enlightenment are evident. SEELE works to the archaic plan of apocalyptic prophecy, aiding and abetting its pre-ordained agenda in order to wage a battle of Armageddon with the invading Angels by creating its own force of terrestrial gods, the EVAs. Commander Ikari and his other two NERV conspirators (Akagi and Fuyutski), under the accommodating guise of NERV and its powerful SEELE benefactors, masks his Sephirotic plan to use the organisation to engineer his own apocalyptic mode of human transcendence through Complementation."


 * This is definitely questionable. We never see any scrolls of SEELE, so we don't have dueling icons. Nor is it clear that SEELE is opposed to the sefira, since their mass production Evas evoke them just fine in EoE. But the bald facts are still right, and Gendo really is opposed to SEELE's 3I, and the Evas are called even in the series, I think, man-made Gods. But this doesn't seem too important; I can't see Broderick making any claims that would be falsified if Evangelion's plot failed to follow the Tree of Life schemata exactly. Finally, 28:


 * "Regardless of creator Anno's stated intentions and artistic agenda, Neon Genesis Evangelion achieves what all major apocalyptic works invoke whether they be narrative, myth, prophecy, crusade or therapy—namely, a vision of society radically transformed from one of chaotic and imminent demise towards the liberation from oppression of an elect into a new realm of perpetual peace and harmony. That NGE in particular, and japanime in general, both render societal and individual rebirth through apocalyptic cataclysm, while maintaining their international appeal, suggests that Apocalypse—as a 'grand narrative of legitimation'—still remains viable, visible and successful in finding mass audience, despite the premature obituaries pronounced by 1980s postmodernists."


 * I don't know what the 1980s postmodernists say, but here too I find nothing to object to, especially given his disclaiming of Anno - he is concerned with its reception, not with Anno's plans. 'Man plans, God laughs', as the saying goes.
 * So in general, there is a lot of value in this article, the wrong claims are either commonplace outside of any academic circle or are metaphorical or unimportant, and it's not nearly as bad as you see it. --Gwern (contribs) 21:34 28 November 2009 (GMT)

V, please stop making unsubstanciated comments blinded by hatred and jalousy. All the papers you're targetting perfectly meet the criteria, and there is nothing wrong with their content. All the childish personal attacks you throw at the authors won't hide the fact that the only issue you have is that you didn't write these papers: your posts literally reek of jalousy. It appears that in your mind, if you don't get to be published in the Eva article, then no one can. Maybe this is your revenge for your "epsiode commentaries" that were deleted here, maybe you think you're better than anyone else because you hosted panels at a convention. One thing is clear, though: in your rants, you absolutely don't give a damn about the WP criteria. Talk pages aren't to be used as forums: your feelings towards these papers and their authors are of no interest, V.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Folken this absolutely has nothing to do with hatred or jealousy, i agree with V actually. we should mention things starting off with "According to Napier" or "according to [insert here]". Although the problem that i'm being confused is that i know we have a theory along with two secondary or third sources saying it's fact. Do we also use the third and secondary sources in the article itself or just use them merely to make the theory notable enough to be mentioned? if it is merely to make the theory notable then it is not needed to be mentioned as fact and can go be said "According to". According to WP:FRINGE if a source has been proven false then it should be mentioned. '''If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.'''. Not arguing that napier's theory or anything else should be removed but items that have been proven wrong should be mentioned as so seeing as how the creators of NGE said it has no significance and proved napier wrong. But she is still notable enogh to stay, just that now we have to simply say it was proven wrongBread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I perfectly agree that when dealing with external reviews and analyses we should begin with "according to xxx" and I'm not suggesting otherwise. V started using very harsh words against people he doesn't seem to like, but I think such behavior is perfectly out-of-place in a WP discussion. Comparing critics that have been published in an academic journal to "random fanboys who mailed in a poorly researched essay" is certainly not a clever way to argue. V is showing his personnal feelings instead of a reasoned argumentation, and it is not constructive. Talk pages are not forums.
 * If reliable sources mention another source, then as per Rs, the other source is deemed reliable. But this doesn't prevent us to handle the source with caution. If you're referring to Manabu Tsuribe's essay, I totally agree that we shouldn't give it undue weight, on the contrary we should clearly use it as someone's opinion and not as a production fact.
 * Now about what you say about "being proved wrong". Be careful when handling this notion because it's not up to WP to say what is right and what is wrong. Also, there is difference in saying "this is right" and saying "some considered this to be right before, but now the general consensus is against it". And finally, we're not dealing with absolute truths or lies when talking about commentators' opinions. If some viewers perceived a message in a certain way, whatever the show creators may have said, then there is no right or wrong. A feeling, an opinion, cannot be proved wrong. Various critics, reviewers, and the audience, were puzzled by the religious refs in Eva, and came up with various interpretations, and all this will never be proved wrong. WP's aim is not to report the truth, but what has been said on a subject. You cannot say that the audience's reception of a TV show is "wrong". If the reaction was not the one expected by the production team, then the team failed (and that's what Tsurumaki said: had they know Eva was going to be so popular in the West, they would not have used so much christian references). And contrary to what you claim, these receptions, these perceptions, these feelings, were never presented as "production truths" in the article. Only as truths for those who expressed them. So I don't see the need to insist on that, since there is no problem of the kind in the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

no, what ever opinion someone has over the show is neigther right or wrong unless they are making a theory or believing something that's in the plot, still we must put other things like theories and perception from specific people's view into a form where it's not true. to make it simpler, if they are praising th show because of religious reference or something like that, than it's his opinion and not wrong. but if someone one was making a presumption of what religious eferences mean, than thats where we say "according to".

I would say like "despite many western belief the creators of NGE did not expect it to have such high reception due to religious references. Tsurumaki has said: " or something like that.

other than that i agree with you. and yes i think we shouldn't give Manabu Tsubire's essay undue weight.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Doujinshi
I don't believe doujinshi should be mentioned in NGE article. it's self published work, and not truly part of a particular series. Also specifically Gakuen Datenroku holds no sources and I've searched for any awards for anime/manga or anything related to it and found none. I dont believe a mention of doujinshi should be in NGE within NGE series range. they are usu ally parodies or alternative stories not thought up by the creator or suggested to a specific group.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless they are covered in reliable sources, dojinshi are generally not mentionned. And Gakuen Datenroku is not a dojinshi.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Our articles cover only the licensed manga, which are by definition not doujinshi, as they are neither copyright violations, by amateurs, nor self-published (the 3 main criteria for being a doujinshi). As you would know if you had read dōjinshi and not, as you apparently have, simply assumed it is a pejorative term akin to your favorites like 'fancruft' or 'trivia'.
 * That said, a doujinshi is neither more nor less notable than any other work which isn't published in/by some extremely eminent that automatically confers notability. Doujins just normally don't have any independent RSs, is all. (Personally, I'm convinced that there was enough independent coverage of Re-Take to satisfy N, but since I know no Japanese, it is impossible for me to dig them up.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:42 24 November 2009 (GMT)

I have read Doujinshi, only mention that of a publisher, i'm still searching on liscensor. And gwern, stay on topic. it's uncivil to talk about something irrelevant yet to use as an argument against me. either way Gakuen Datenroku holds no reliable soruces and most of it could be OR. I suggest preserving it and try to find more sources for within a 4-5 week range, after that if no sources have been found, then we delete the article or merge it with anotherBread Ninja (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1-I fully agree with Bread Ninja. 2-..."Re-Take" is a poorly written fanfiction series, with numerous sex scenes:  No Gwern, it is not verifiably "popular" or "notable"; a handful of very vocal fans of this fanfiction, have tried to artificially say that it is "very popular".  Not only are they incapable of proving its "notability"...its self-serving nonsense where everything turns out happy, sort of like rewriting "Romeo and Juliet" so that no one dies, then telling everyone that it has been "improved".  I do not believe there has been enough independent coverage of Re-Take, I question the word "independent" (Japanese-language fansites don't count), and the "burden of proof"...is on Re-Take, not wikipedia.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's fanfiction, that's what doujinshi usually are! (I like your rhetoric, though, even if not very subtle.) And I would disagree about poorly written; it's superior to anything in the Eva universe except the movies & TV series & manga, which is a category, you'll remember, that contains quite a few works by actual professionals. You exaggerate the sex scenes - quickly looking through, I count ~20 pages containing any sex, out of 660 pages. 3% is 'numerous sex scenes'? If so, I guess there are numerous R-rated movies that need to be bumped up into NC-17...
 * The plot is fine to me. It's much more comprehensible than TV or EoE, and works much better on the inspiration level, and actually takes the other-worlds plot device from TV seriously. You complain about the happy ending? Well, 'no one dies' in EoE too, if by no one dies you mean Shinji & Asuka don't bite the bullet. The Shinji at the end of RT is a Shinji that deserves to live, not merely a Shinji that doesn't deserve to die; a difficult and impressive transmutation, IMO.
 * As for independent coverage - obviously I can't dispute that. You'll notice I'm not exactly agitating at DRV for the article to be undeleted. There is not and likely never will be any coverage in English, and what coverage there is in Japanese is unavailable to us both (unless you've learned Japanese while I haven't noticed.) My gut tells me that RT is pretty good, by someone who makes a living at his work, and unusually merited a re-release with the 20 pages that so offend you excluded, and all this makes it much more probable that there are sources showing N out there. --Gwern (contribs) 03:33 28 November 2009 (GMT)
 * "it's superior to anything in the Eva universe except the movies & TV series & manga, which is a category, you'll remember, that contains quite a few works by actual professionals. -- that's obviously just your "opinion". And there is nothing beyond the TV series (movies) and manga.  Define "actual professionals"; given that I consider even Susan Napier and Mari Kotani's work utter tripe, that doesn't really prove anything.  Self-serving fanfiction made by emotionally stunted fanboys has no place here.  You're not exactly persuading me any differently, other than to make the argument that "but I liked it".  Re-Take, and all fanfiction, stays off. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's shelve the opinions regarding Re-Take's quality; I also liked it, but that line of thought is completely subjective and irrelevant. The major issue is its notability, and as has been said, unless someone can translate Japanese sources regarding it (if they exist), as long as there are no sources in Western media that cover it, it doesn't need to be included.  I'm surprised that there are no sources for Gakuen Datenroku...has no one found anything talking about it, at all? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * V: what I meant by other works was obvious. And no, it is not just my opinion that there are other works in the Eva universe by professionals - Fumino Hayashi of Angelic Days is a mangaka, like the fellow who did Petit Eva; the 2 Raising Projects & Battle Orchestra and so on were produced by real video games companies. Not every Eva property was done by Gainax (even excluding the Studio Khara thing). Nothing beyond the animes and manga indeed! That seems like quite an opinion you have there... If we find sources showing N, 'fanfiction' stays on.
 * Willbyr: I haven't even looked for Gakuen sources. Why would I bother before this? I won't learn anything interesting about Eva, and my time is better spent researching the old sources. --Gwern (contribs) 18:05 28 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I did not mean to exclude the video games, etc. What I meant was "there is nothing beyond the officially licensed materials".  Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for fanboys to self-promote their fanfiction. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OST and Singles
I noticed a lot of the OST articles hold no notability to sustain there own articles.

I suggest we merge all articles into one and name it Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion series similar to that of Music of the Final Fantasy series and split it into seperate sections The only OST's that do hold GNG is ~refrain~ The songs were inspired by Evangelion, Neon Genesis Evangelion Addition, and Evangelion: The Birthday of Rei Ayanami. All the other's hold one to no references.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neon Genesis Evangelion
 * Evangelion: Death and Rebirth
 * End of Evangelion
 * Rebuild of Evangelion

Also A Cruel Angel's Thesis doesn't have any references either.I also i question whether Fly Me to the Moon should be mentioned in the NGE portal. Beautiful World/Kiss & Cry is pretty notable enough to hold it's own article so it should just be briefly mentioned in the future article (if ever made depending on your decision).Bread Ninja (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fly me to the Moon is about as notable as ACT, and definitely more than Beautiful World; although my impression is that this is more due to the disgusting overuse and release of it than any genuine quality or popularity. (I saw a list of variants and tweaks on Fly me to the Moon, that listed over, IIRC, 30.) --Gwern (contribs) 17:07 11 December 2009 (GMT)

I am not saying Fly me to the moon is not notable, i'm merely saying that the Single is not truly part of NGE series and not be mentioned in the portal (list of NGE articles in one directory at the very bottom of the articles).Bread Ninja (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

other than that anyone think this is a good idea?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, that's not a portal. Portal:Evangelion is the portal. The template thing is just a template.
 * I don't see any reason the template shouldn't list all the articles we have - that's kind of their point, to be an easier-to-navigate bite-sized NGE category/list. Merging sounds like a decent idea, but even so, we may want to preserve their links in the navbox, much like we would still want to link Yui Ikari etc. even if we merged everyone but Shinji, Rei, and Asuka into the List of characters article. --Gwern (contribs) 19:30 11 December 2009 (GMT)

sorry for the confusion but still, like i said, only Fly Me to the Moon article shouldn't be in it. Maybe if we found sources about the NGE version of Fly Me to the Moon and make another article or add more info onto the article, than it would be more acceptable to place Fly Me to the Moon Article in the NGE directory template or whatever it's called.

so all we need to do is preserve the links in a NAvbox and start merging right? i'll look into it more, i never really merged an article beforeBread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jumping in :p
 * I think that all soundtracks should be merge into a list like List of Popotan soundtracks (which happen to be a FL) with the only exception being singles & albums tied to a notable singer or group. When you see that even an article was made for Komm, süsser Tod (song) which won't pass GNG or SNGs by a far margin, you have to think that some persons wanted an article for every single EVA related stuff with a lot a FUR images as an icing to the cake. --KrebMarkt 08:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

wow i come back from holidays and i already see some already replying. Anyways thats what i was trying to say. Fly Me to the Moon seems to be more tied with Frank Sinatra than NGE. considering your thoughts, that makes me even more certain about Beautiful World/Kiss & Cry not being listed in the article. the only thing now i need is help merging all the articles together.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already dropped the references in Dandy Sephy's subpage. Feel free to edit the stuff. --KrebMarkt 23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As of now, unauthorised editing of my sandboxes is banned to the addition or removal of content. Sources and minor edits are fine but I will not accept random users removing content from my sandboxes without permission. If you want to work together, ask. If you want to make new content, do it in your own space or ask. I'm not babysitting people who don't know what they are doing, if you want to use what I've done so far, take it to your own userspace and leave me to get on with other articles instead of having to deal with politics. I'm happy to collaborate, but it's suppossed to

give me less to worry about, not more. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry for all the mess, anyways, i dont think the title "list of albums" is a very good title, it will force the article to be about list of albums, rather than talking about the Albums themselves, that's why i originally intended "music of neon genesis evangelion" or "music of evangelion" considering if the series name does not match the anime name. i intended to allow articles about albums that only had one to no referrence be merged while those that do be preserved and allowed to be expanded but at the same time still have some mention of those articles within the merged articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Ok, further discussions & edits on what and how to merge are now on User:KrebMarkt/List of Neon Genesis Evangelion albums. Everyone is welcome to do article building but please reach a minimum of consensus on what and how to merge. --KrebMarkt 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Glossary
many articles somehow happened to be created without really even holding any notability or any need for Spin out. for example Human Instrumentality Project and Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline. both are in-universe and hold no sources (Proper sources), i don't think they are even necessary to be merged with another article. I believe they should just be removed entirely. As for Evangelion (mecha), i think we should rename it to something much more easier to understand.

both Evangelion (mecha) and List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion should be summarized and remove any original research. this part is easier so i'll work on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * HIP is relevant and very important to many articles, and it'd be silly to have them all have to dig up references and quotes to describe the bit of HIP important in their context, especially since it's so key to the plot (most of EoE is just HIP after all!). A merge is sensible to the glossary, but total removal?
 * As I've said before, the timeline could be sensibly merged to the franchise article if someone (hint hint) would reformat it to take up less space.
 * As for Evangelion and Angels, there's not much OR. Just plot material and brain-dead inference. (If it's now "OR" to point out that Evas must be several stories high because they tower over buildings, then Wikipedia truly has degenerated.) --Gwern (contribs) 19:49 11 December 2009 (GMT)

One, HIP has no sources at all, no it wont be silly to find sources and quotes about HIP. Also the main problem with human instrumentality project is that it's completely about NGE> i'm pretty sure human instrumentality project exist in real-world aswell in some beliefs.

HIP can easily be explained but to explain the plot and where HIP exist is not necessary (i'm starting to feel repetition) that can go on NGE sections or other.

the humean instrumentality project is merely the desicion of how mankind will end. whether god does it himself or Humans destroy themselves. nothing to difficult to explain. two sntences. all the rest is not necessary to hae in one separate article. Gwern you need to understand nothing can stay unless it has sources references or at least some external link.

As for the timeline, whether it was reformated or not, it's trivial. not necessary in any area of NGE. I would call it in-universe, but i would like ot hear others talk about it. ANgels holds alot of OR aswell, dont act sarcastic and say something important as trivia jsut to prove your point.

major areas in both the Mecha and angel articles have little references, big gaps between references making some areas believed to be OR. and brain-dead infrence dont exist within NGE series unless it's something like "shinji is a boy" or "rei ayanami is a girl" stuff similar to that.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Human Instrumentality Project
FYI, Human Instrumentality Project has been AfD'd for deletion. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The result was to redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)