Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Honnêamise sequel

Regarding the Honnêamise sequel. Should we actually explain how it failed? it doesn't seem important in the NGE anime article IMO. I think it's best to mention that the production failed leading to the production of NGE>Bread Ninja (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd dislike a bare mention 'Gainax's previous project failed, and at lunch Anno was drinking with Otsuki and...'.

The running out of money sets up the later end of NGE TV; the list of areas Gainax was involved or not in characterizes Gainax as very otakuy; and Anno's personal involvement in the failure jeopardizing the company makes material on his depression and psychological interest much more understandable - an unsympathetic reader might wonder what this Anno fellow has to be upset about. (And it's ironic that a film about 'not running away' would cause Gainax - and Anno - to 'run away' from the film, if you follow me. Gainax & Yamaga have never really recovered, in a sense - even now they're still talking about making Aoki Uru! It's now been outstanding even longer than Chinese Democracy or Duke Nukem Forever.)

Further, the perceptive reader will notice that while Aoki Uru nearly destroyed Gainax, Gainax didn't break a sweat making D&R or EoE, and will infer correctly that we aren't kidding when we say NGE was damn popular and made a damn lot of money.

So you see, that small section ties in to a number of relevant points. No surprise, since it's the beginning of the Eva story. "A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct..." --Gwern (contribs) 01:41 12 January 2010 (GMT)

you sure quote things that aren't really involved with what I'm saying. what does death and rebirth or the end of evangelion have to do with this? the reason why they were able to make D&R and EoE was because the series became very popular. Also this appears to be an opinion of yours more than stating actual facts (dont get me wrong, i know that NGE is popular and made a lot of money). i understand the mention of the sequel failed leading to Anno open to create NGE (which is already mentioned in Evangelion pre-release) but i don't think any more mention of how it failed is necessary for the article seeing as how the section mentions nothing of NGE.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

D&R and EoE have everything to do with it. As Samuel Johnson said, 'I have found you an argument, sir, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." The facts speak for themselves. I don't know how it is germane to talk of adding 'any more' when you brought this up to remove the section. --Gwern (contribs) 21:26 30 January 2010 (GMT)

D&R and EoE are not really part of this, because they came AFTER the anime tv series. What I'm trying to ask is, why should we give heavy detail on Honnêamise sequel in the production of the anime tv series? I think it would be best to remove that section and keep some basic info more relating to NGE than GAINAX financial problems.

but please explain how D&R and EoE influence the tv series' production and how that's a valid argument to keep the section.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained that, and justified the section practically line by line. --Gwern (contribs) 15:33 6 February 2010 (GMT)

that was merely a Comparison of the two different series. Still as much as you say you are, you really didn't "Answer" my question as to why it should be kept.

the reason why D&R and EOE were able to be made was due to the first series. Anno didn't have any plans of D&R and EOE when production started and i still have no idea how that is valid for the argument.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Genre, or, Seinen/Shonen?

So people keep adding/removing/changing the genre field for NGE. This is bothering me quite a bit. People seem to have quite heated feelings and no-one is giving any real reasons for their preferences. Indeed, my personal feelings is that NGE is too protean to be comfortably confined in one or the other.

This is not a situation conducive to a good article. So, until someone comes up with solid and preferably scholarly reference as to what genre - if any - NGE should be considered to be of, or a good argument as to why the current unsettled situation should be further tolerated, I've unilaterally taken it on myself to remove the genre field to the template and revert any and all additions of a genre field. --Gwern (contribs) 14:29 19 October 2007 (GMT)

I'll vouch for it being Seinen, the series strikes me as too complex and deep to be in a genre that is typically associated with family-friendly action and any intricate plot details must be thoroughly explained by characters of the show. Evangelion requires the watcher to have a certain degree of education and intelligence to make the most of it, something that young boys have rarely achieved. The Human Instrumentality Project, the hidden love, the deeper meaning and symbolism. This is a series directed at the mature. --metroid dragon (contribs) 18:24 7 December 2007 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.70.110 (talk)

I say shonen simply because the manga adaptation is shonen. Usually Gainax makes Shonen anime.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation on the title

the section seems way too long for only too refs to cover. ref 111, seems to be more suited for Evangelion(mecha) and 112 seems to be a completely different source. i can't even tell if it was directed to NGE title. I suggest we remove most of it and move the first paragraph to the Evangelion article.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is not neutral

As I can see with the phrase "commercially and critically successful Japanese anime", the introduction doesn't show an objective point of view. I suggest moving the citations to another section called Reception or Critics.

I notice the phrase "It won several major animation awards" also should be moved to another section, mentioning each one of those.

--NeoAdonis (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems silly to me. By what standard has Eva not been commercially or critically successful? To segregate those cites is to make the introduction misleading and incomplete; please see the second paragraph of WP:LEDE, such as 'explain why the subject is interesting or notable'. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 19 September 2010 (GMT)

Well i agree it shouldn't be removed from the lead paragraph, i don't think it should be mentioned at the very beginning of the Lead. Somewhere near the second part would be better.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious references

• January 2004 issue of Anime Insider (pp.24-32): http://web.archive.org/web/20041215005107/www.evangelion.ca/faqs/animein11.html

• 'Apocalypticism Japanese-style'; 'Dr. Mark MacWilliams Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York'[1] (old homepage]

Any whiners want to incorporate these in? No, I thought not... --Gwern (contribs) 20:23 14 December 2009 (GMT)

it's been over a year and i had time to learn more details on the rules, and although they are sourced, i still haven't adapated to the list of religous references. I recently noticed that the only thing that is keeping them there is that it has a reliable sourced, but does not meet WP:NOTGUIDE #4. although aimed to text books, i believe it has a more general meaning behind the rule. As previous arguments in the past, the list is there not to "Inform" but to "instruct" (seeing as how if we removed it would apprently not get the mssage clear). There is also WP:PLOT#1. again vaguely relates, but i dont see any WP that supports a list in-universe references of an out-of-universe subjects (unless each specifically got an ammount of reception and even then that would merit more of an individual article than anything else). the list of individual religious references that vaught a certain reviewers eye isn't enough to sipmply put them on.

And if you don't agree with those reasonings then it should be clear, keeping that list is hurting it's chances of getting GA status for the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting facts

Concerning Su-27 instead of Su-33 on flight-deck. Isn't it an interesting fact? Why it doesn't contribute to article? Alextab (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to make an interesting facts section for the article then I personally see no problem with it. But including one random fact isnt helpful and it doesnt really warrant its own section. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Should I then collect some more facts and include 'em in the article? Alextab (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Facts needs to show a cultural influences or nod that is well documented in reliable, third-party sources and should not be random trivia or personal observations. This edit[2] is an example of what not to include in the article because it is not a cultural reference or nod noted by reliable, third-party sources and involves personal observation and analyst. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alex, I think I agree with the others on this. The details of the weapon designs may be interesting to a very small subset of Eva or weapons fans, but no one else. There are many more important topics for Eva articles to cover - key plot concepts like First Impact or AT Fields were recently deleted.

On the other hand, some folks on the Evageeks wiki are quite interested in the details of the weapons (see for example the small arms article). You can't simply register an account, you have to request one, but if you point to your reverted edits here and say you want to create a full article on the planes eg. then I'm sure you'd breeze through and your article or edits not be deleted.. --Gwern (contribs) 02:18 17 February 2011 (GMT)

Fightstar

Legacy section's subsection music is mostly about this "Fightstar" band and while it was interesting to read I don't feel that it really belongs to the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) article. I don't see the connection why it should be here. Especially when there's this Neon Genesis Evangelion article for general information about NGE. Besides there are probably several bands which have take influences from NGE. What makes this "Fightstar" special enough to be included in NGE (anime) article? I hope we can have a small debate about moving this bit of information to Fightstar's article and out of the NGE (anime) article. However if Fightstar is a small mention (like one sentence) I would be fine with that. -Mikitei (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of another similar case we're talking about....but i agree on this one because it meets the same principle....it doesn't seem like it's that strong. only one real source stating it's inspired by NGE, while the other being based completely off the lyrics which is original research. I suggest it should be trimmed upto one sentence and remove the rest. and of course merge it as one section.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Souls

"In the context of Evangelion, a soul refers to an individual's conscious existence, mental structure and identity, rather than a more conventional supernatural entity." -- That's not true, though. Souls are first and foremost immaterial constructs drawn from the Chamber of Guf, which is not shown once in the series, so it probably exists on a "higher plane of existence". Souls generate AT fields which can not be explained in their entirety by classical mechanics, either. Also, you can not copy a soul or create one from scratch (cf. the conversation in episode 23: "The Chamber of Guf is empty. [...] They [the Rei clones] have no souls."), whereas you could do exactly that if souls were not "supernatural" and made out of conventional matter. I could agree to the first part of the quoted statement, as "conscious experience" can be seen as something supernatural, too, but the second part is definitely incorrect. Waiting for objections. --88.76.17.106 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes I'm Making

Yo, here's a section for some changes I'm gonna make because I won't have room in the edit summary box to explain everything. I kinda want to do an overhaul to get rid of that "this article has multiple issues" box. I'm going to try to do it bite-sized chunks by section so I don't lose my mind. --Diskon (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• changed the translation thing to take advantage of an extra, non-italic field in the "Nihongo" template (italic text should only be for foreign languages, not literal translations, right?)
• changed "lit." to "literally" so the lead is more accessible to those who don't know what "lit." means
• added "Eva" to list of commonly referred-to names
• took out the "commercially and critically successful" quasi-puffery in opening sentence and instead put hard facts of its notability at the end of the first paragraph
• added "Japanese science-fiction" to description to be more descriptive
• replaced "anime series" with "animation series" to make it more accessible as per the "may only interest a specific audience" thing
• added end date of original airing in opening sentence -- just felt like it was missing
• moved who made it to second sentence because it seemed important
• "highly influential" is more non-specific puffery and was removed
• that the anime "launched the Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise" is maybe imprecise since the manga came out first, so I just got rid of that bit
• moved bit about who made it up a sentence because I thought it was important
• changed wording about who made it for readability and accessibility
• removed who produced it ("an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience")
• changed wording in bit on what the show's about again for accessibility and to expand it a bit more
• stuff in the last paragraph seemed to be just tagged on there at the end for no convincing reason, so I changed it to make it more about its depth so people can hopefully understand a bit better why it's any good
• tried to standardize the citation style as per the annoying box at the top of the page

Whew. --Diskon (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree with changing anime to animated series. The lit. Aswell. These arent important nor difficult terms especially when there are wikilinks. Also the rest seems to be purely subjective. And the anime production began before the manga. So the anime is the first.Lucia Black (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For the "anime series" thing, I was just trying to use as plain of English as possible for the opening sentence, but maybe you're right. If "lit." had a wikilink, then I'd be more okay with it, too. I do understand that production on the anime came before the manga, but the manga began publishing like ten months earlier. If you find a way of saying all that in an accessible and succinct way appropriate for the lead, then go ahead and change it. Cheers. --Diskon (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

a lot of articals us lit. Instead of literally. It saves space and time for someone to understand. The point is the anime influenced the series. Regardless lets not make a big deal out of small things that we both know wont cause confusion.Lucia Black (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Deal. --Diskon (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot

This section is already really good. It even introduces all the main characters, saving space in the characters section. The only thing I changed was a little capitalization error. I don't remember the tsunamis, nuclear war, or global axial tilt from the series, though. Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention. --Diskon (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Characters

• moved the picture up to make use of space
• got rid of the "|30px|30px" from quote code because I don't know what it does and it seems fine without it
• wikilinked and described Hideaki Anno under quote in case the reader forgot who he is (it's a new section, and it's hard to memorize a writer's name from reading it once, especially if it's Japanese
• re-worded most of it to make it more readable, less puffy, more accessible, etc.
• moved part about Anno's intentions up because it seems more appropriate to start with that before getting into the details
• "all perspectives into one", "to make it impossible for everyone to arrive at a single theory", "psychological representations" ... what does they even mean?
• deleted the "It seems..." sentence as per WP:SYNTH
• suicide doesn't seem relevant, so I got rid of that part
• wikilinked all the character names again because it's a new section, and it's about the characters after all
• I got rid of that next paragraph because it didn't even mention the characters
• got rid of the bit about being "immortalized", because it's exaggerated praise if I've ever seen it
• tried to clean up references

--Diskon (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking good so far. Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Brain Powerd "outdoing" Evangelion

All 3 "sources" seem to be unattributed regurgitations of the same quote which originated as part of a rumor. The page for Brain Powerd links to an interview contradicting this claim. I think we should axe that section, then

Tomino claimed that the plans and overall storyline for Brain Powerd were made even prior to the airing of Evangelion.[3] He stated that he "never meant [Brain Powerd] to be an antithesis to Evangelion" despite the inevitable comparisons they would receive when his own series debuted in 1998. After deciding not to make any changes to Brain Powerd, he "resigned" himself to the fact that the public would label his anime an attempt to best Evangelion.[3] 2602:306:CC95:B20:34D5:2771:E5BE:6FAE (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

due to WP:OWN of a certain user and lack of interest and help. It would be difficult to find a better solution.Lucia Black (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Can we expand the "reception" category to include more than fan and anime fan opinions? A more well-rounded selection of viewpoints should always be welcome. -Miranda (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

Trawling through WorldCat, I noticed two books that might be worthwhile future sources:

• Evangerion kenkyu josetsu., by Kabutogi, Reigo. (OCLC: 63073050). A Japanese book held in the Toronto Public Library (of all places). It's listed as fiction, but it's description is "Pedantry of neon genesis evangelion", which seems to me to indicate it's criticism of some sort, and so potentially useful.
• On a more conventional note, "Neon genesis evangelion: the unofficial guide" (2004; ISBN: 0974596140), by Kazuhisa Fujie, trans. by Martin Foster, is in English and explicitly about "mysteries and secrets". Certainly sounds useful, and odds are we could cite quite a bit of speculation from it, which would definitely be good. I've used this.

So! Fellow editors: keep your eyes open for these books! (If you read Japanese and live in Toronto especially!) --Gwern (contribs) 01:04 18 December 2006 (GMT)

Timeline

I'm having some trouble tracking down some Anno quotes. There's an April 14 1996 radio interview (shortly after the March 27 finale) where Anno famously said "anime fans need to have more self respect" and need to "come back to earth", but I can't find a transcript.

This also says "According to Anno, from episode 16 on, he began reading books about human psychology and became very interested. He wanted to explore "what the human mind is all about inside." "I wrote about myself. My friend lent me a book on psychological illness and this gave me a shock, as if I finally found what I needed to say," he says in the November Newtype." which I think would be a bangup source to use for some of the psychology-related {{cn}}s, but I can't really verify it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:43 10 March 2007 (GMT)

Ok, I'm satisfied with what I have for the latter issue, but I still have diddly-squat on the radio interview. :( --Gwern (contribs) 06:02 21 March 2007 (GMT)

Australian revenues

Not really sure where to put this:

'Anime series Bubblegum Crisis was the first officially licensed title, but early success required a cash investment from his family. Anderson's mother put up $A20,000 to help pay for the rights to anime masterpiece Neon Genesis Evangelion.

"My mum has a lot of faith in me," he laughed. The hunch paid off, with SBS Television buying the broadcast rights, gaining exposure that caused video sales three or four times above expectations.

"We paid something like $US20,000 and grossed $A1.5 million," he said.'[3]

--Gwern (contribs) 19:12 29 June 2009 (GMT)

Another source for an Oz broadcast:

"Anime will continue to seep into the mainstream market in the USA, Europe and Australia. The recent broadcasting of EVANGELION on Australian TV and the positive response is a very groovy sign."

http://www.ex.org/4.1/09-bts2.html --Gwern (contribs) 04:40 13 December 2009 (GMT)

Assorted accolades

From http://afufu.net/freewill/2008/03/anime-reviews/ which has pulled together a nice list of praise-reviews: NGE TV:

“Neon Genesis Evangelion is a worthy successor to Top o Nerae: Gunbuster! and Secret of Blue Water…It will very probably join the likes of Super Dimensional Fortress Macross and Mobile Suit Gundam in the ranks of the groundbreaking mecha series. This only shows that, contrarily to the rumors, Studio Gainax was not dead. It was only taking a breather and preparing its next attack upon the unsuspecting animation world.” –Protoculture Addicts

“If there is one series out there worth buying more than once, it’s Neon Genesis Evangelion” –Protoculture Addicts
“Mysterious and ornate as EVA’s conspiratorial story of esoteric theology and ultra-tech mecha is, it is Anno’s resolute urgency of NOW that burns through, and it was (presumably) this thing that audiences in Japan sensed – that because this anime show had actually MEANT something to the real person who made it, it might mean something real to them as well.” –Animerica

“One of the greatest anime series of all time…” –MTV.com

Of the Platinum releases:

“Neon Genesis Evangelion was anime’s perfect storm. It’s a phenomenon like Star Wars, Harry Potter or The Matrix. Plenty of works are going to try to reproduce it, but ultimately it will stand apart.” –Aint It Cool News

“You’ll enjoy the ride” –Chris Johnston, Newtype USA
“…still ahead of its time on most levels.” , “The story itself is among the top sellers for a reason, the sheer quality of the show befits a premium release on DVD, but the value of the new set will be likely to get a lot of people off the fence and pick this one up.” –Don Houston, DVD Talk

“‘If you haven’t seen it make an appointment to view it when it airs on Cartoon Network, then pick up the, at this time definitive, Platinum Edition. It is a work that is best suited for a format that allows the viewer to pause, rewind, and rewatch.’” –Scott Green, Ain’t It Cool News

It would be well worth-while to track down the original articles. --Gwern (contribs) 21:32 30 January 2010 (GMT)

Mainichi Times articles

Good news! Someone managed to dig them up from somewhere: http://forum.evageeks.org/viewtopic.php?t=8990

Unfortunately, that doesn't include the episode reviews/summaries, but we can't have everything. --Gwern (contribs) 01:13 28 April 2010 (GMT)

Split off

I took this section from the ailing NGE topic article:

Though the original plot line for Evangelion remained relatively stable through development, production proved to be turbulent: Sadamoto's authorship of the promoting manga caused problems, as multiple publishers felt "that he was too passé to be bankable"; the stylized mecha design that Evangelion would later be praised for was initially deprecated by some of the possible sponsors of a mecha anime (toy companies) as being too difficult to manufacture (possibly on purpose), and that models of the Evangelions "would never sell." Eventually, Sega agreed to license all toy and video game sales.

A sudden shift in tone occurred in the series around episode 16, partially due to scheduling restraints (drastically reducing the number of frames that could be drawn for each episode). While Anno had promised early on that "every episode [would give]...something for the fans to drool over," he began either removing fan service or juxtaposing it with scenes of emotional trauma. The problematic schedule and Gainax's reputation for delivering episode prints at the last minute also resulted in more experimental approaches, with several episodes reusing shots, using uncommonly long still frames, flashing frames of often rhetorical introspective (Japanese) text and the final two episodes changed from their original concept into a psychological analysis of the main characters.

The resulting 26-episode anime, animated by Tatsunoko Productions and Gainax, and co-produced by TV Tokyo and Nihon Ad Systems, was broadcast from October 4, 1995 to March 27, 1996 on TV Tokyo. It was critically and commercially successful and acclaimed for its innovative imagery, concepts, and refreshing take on the mecha genre and anime as a whole (though not without controversy, as reception of the latter quarter of the TV series was sometimes hostile to the point of death threats). It was later aired across Japan by the anime satellite television network, Animax. The series won the Animage Anime Grand Prix prize in 1995 and 1996.

I'm going to leave here for pickings for now, rather than remove it entirely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Blockquotes

I've removed the blockquotes to tighten up the prose. Those removed include:

"There is no longer room for absolute originality in the field of anime, especially given that our generation was brought up on mass-produced anime. All stories and techniques inevitably bring with them a sense of déjà vu. The only avenue of expression left open to us is to produce a collage-like effect based on a sampling of existing works."

"The people who make anime and the people who watch it always want the same things. The creators have been making the same story for about 10 years; the viewers seem to be satisfied and there's no sense of urgency. There's no future in that."

Regardless, Anno seems to have hoped to reinvigorate the medium of anime—seen as lifeless and moribund in the early 1990s—and restore originality: to create a new anime. This desire is also the reason Anno cited for creating the Rebuild of Evangelion movies:

"Many different desires are motivating us to create the new "Evangelion" film… The desire to fight the continuing trend of stagnation in anime.

The desire to support the strength of heart that exists in the world…
Many times we wondered, "It's a title that's more than 10 years old. Why now?"
"Eva is too old", we felt.

However, over the past 12 years, there has been no anime newer than Eva.

I've removed them for now, but placed them here for review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

More:

"One of the key themes in Aoki Uru had been "not running away." In the story, the main character is faced with the daunting task of saving the heroine … He ran away from something in the past, so he decides that this time he will stand his ground. The same theme was carried over into Evangelion, but I think it was something more than just transposing one show's theme onto another …"

"The development of Evangelion gives me the feeling of a ‘Live’ concert. Whether it was the story or character development, I made them without theory. During the development, while listening to various opinions, and analyzing my own state of mind, I kept questioning myself. I got the concepts from this personal stocktaking [self-assessment]. At first I thought I would produce a simple work featuring robots.
But even when the main scene became a high school, it did not differ compared to other productions in the same style. At this point, I did not really think of creating a character with two faces, two identities: one shown at school, and the other inside the organization he belongs to [Nerv]. The impression of ‘Live’ concert that gives me the birth of Eva, was the team joining me in developing it, in the manner of an improvisation: someone plays the guitar and, in response, the drums and bass are added. The performance ended with the TV broadcasting ending. We only started working on the next script once the previous one was done.

It took longer than usual. When we finished a screenplay, we went back and checked it against the previous ones. When we said: ‘Ah, I thought so, that’s wrong there’, we made corrections to the storyboard. In fact, with the last episode approaching, we have not even been able to finish on time."

I compressed them to make it less wordy and flow better. Anno's comments are best paraphrased in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Section removed

I've removed this section:

As much as Evangelion has been impacted by other works like Devilman, the series itself has become a staple in Japanese fiction. The nature of the show made it a landmark work in the more psychological and sophisticated vein of anime that would be picked up by later works such as Revolutionary Girl Utena (1997) that, like Evangelion, center on an ambiguous world-changing event to come. Serial Experiments Lain is a later anime which dealt with many of the same themes as Evangelion, and so is often thought to be influenced by Neon Genesis Evangelion, although the writer did not see any of Evangelion until he had finished the fourth episode of Lain, and attributes the utility pole visual motif to independent invention and the screen captions to his borrowing from Jean-Luc Godard and Anno from Kon Ichikawa. The show His and Her Circumstances (1999), which was also directed by Hideaki Anno, shares techniques (the experimental 'ripping-apart' of the animation and use of real photographs) and portrayed psychological conflicts in much the same way (although the various cinematic devices can be traced back to works other than Eva, for instance the works of Osamu Tezuka.).

Because a lot of this is academic work pushed into a synth that only a look at the references allow for proper analysis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) → Neon Genesis Evangelion
• Neon Genesis Evangelion → Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)

The anime meets WP:PTOPIC more than any of the other topics. In the last 30 days, the anime received more hits than the current main page/franchise page. The franchise page is also not the best. It is an overgrown disambiguation page that goes into details covered by other articles. This page set up will allow readers to find what they are really after first, which is the original anime. Discussion at WT:ANIME also mostly found this to be the proper outcome, rather than the merging that I had initially proposed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is the franchise article, not a simple list, further the suggested target was a merger source List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Would "Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)" be better? Because your argument says nothing about whether or not the anime is or is not the primary topic. You only seem to oppose on semantic reasons.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) would work better than the current proposal. It was the name of that article in 2010. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Update concerning the changed proposal, I am now Neutral or weak oppose I prefer having franchise articles as the root article, as a personal preference. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not the PTOPIC, with numerous related works all bearing the same name. This was already heavily discussed at A&M's talk pages. The manga has the same name, is notable, is different and given the numerous games, spin offs and new film series. Neon Genesis Evangelion should be a disamb if anything. Ryulong is misrepresenting the sides at the A&M page. Gwern, Izno, and A Certain White Cat were additional opposers, all backed with arguments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  None of the items you list have anywhere near the presence of the original anime or have slightly different titles than work as disambiguations. And now I am bringing this discussion to the greater view of the project rather than the "defunct" anime wikiproject talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  And "...mostly found this to be the proper outcome..." is wrong. We've been through this already. Considering the whole issue, I see this move request as disruptive. It was made in response to the GITS issue and the move request being filed right after the GITS page was recreated. We have discussed the base argument for months, and OID just explained the policies as it applies. Making a mirror case when NGE doesn't meet either of PTOPIC's criteria serves to show that your interpretation of that policy is the issue. Just like your opinion on the appearance of pages. Both are best discussed and worked out after you cool down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if I've given up hope on coming to a compromise over GITS because Only in death cut the gordian knot, but now I can suggest this in a completely nondisruptive manner. I'm not happy with that but there's nothing I can do about it for the time being. And the anime most certainly meets the criteria of PTOPIC. No one cares about the manga. No one cares about the video games. Everything else has a self-disambiguated title. More people visit the page on the anime than anything else. It is the primary topic. It is a disservice to our readers to give them a glorified disambiguation page presenting itself as a stand alone franchise article when they want to know more about the anime first and foremost.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem defunct to me, both WPANIME and WPEVA has activity this year, both have prompt responses to messages posted. (and ofcourse the media franchise associated with WPEVA is still under production, so would be more likely to have an active project) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  The use of "defunct" is there because ChrisGualtieri and Gwern both categorized WP:ANIME as such when I first proposed this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  If you didn't understand the comments, ask, don't twist them into something they most clearly are not. A&M tries to overrule site-wide policies and touts invalid "rules" long after they are gone. The members who actively pursue these ends comprise the vocal side of the organization that is out of touch with even basic policies. I'm done playing, we will not agree, but thankfully over a dozen editors have expressed the root of A&M's problems and only the actions need to be done to rectify the situation. "More people visit" does not make a PTOPIC any more than your "first media" makes a PTOPIC at GITS. Let's look at some of the media:

  • Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)
    • Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone (movie) (alternate retelling)
      • Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance (movie) (sequel)
      • Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo (movie) (sequel)
      • Evangelion Shin Gekijō-ban: ? (movie) (sequel)
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) (alternate retelling)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Campus Apocalypse (manga) (alternate universe)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Comic Tribute (manga) (spinoff)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion (live-action movie) (remake)
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days (manga) (alternate retelling, Spinoff of alternate universe in episode 26)
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth (movie) (remix)
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion (movie) (alternate ending)
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Shinji Ikari Raising Project (manga)
    • Petit Eva - Evangelion@School (OAV)
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion: 1st Impression
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion: 2nd Impression
  • Girlfriend of Steel
    • Girlfriend of Steel 2
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion 64
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion 2
  • Shinji Ikari Raising Project (game)
  • Secret of Evangelion
  • Detective Evangelion
  • Evangelion: Battle Orchestra
  • Evangelion MAGI Angel Attack
  • Evangelion New Theatrical Edition: Sound Impact

  Still missing several from this list, but you get the media aspect point and potential confusion on the relationships. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  How many of those are titled just "Neon Genesis Evangelion" without anything after it? The anime, the manga, the N64 game(?), and the production hell live action movie. The anime is clearly the most notable and most identifiable out of those 4 to warrant being the primary topic. No confusion will arise from getting rid of the franchise page that clearly no one wants to see as the main page and instituting the anime as the primary topic. Our readers come first and I do not see why you refuse to acknowledge that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  This is why the disamb was the better idea. I'm done debating this ad nauseam, the move was rejected in the previous "move discussion" which resulted in a pretty obvious "no consensus to move". For that lengthy discussion please read this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  That was not a rejection. There were clearly people there who thought it was a good idea just as much as there were people there who disagreed. That was also soured by my suggestion of merging. This requested move allows the wider Wikipedia community (those who only participate in requested moves) to state their opinion. Here I am only suggesting movement instead of merging.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The page on the anime is clearly the topic that the most people would want to view, so it should be at the primary title. Both the franchise and manga can be linked from the anime page with hatnotes at the top of the page, making them easy to reach for people who were looking for those pages. Calathan (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support When an anime gets to be so big placing it into a main article with branch off articles is the right way to go. See: Haruhi Suzumiya, Gundam, Sailor Moon for good examples on how this page can and should look like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  You do realize the error you make here? The those are all franchise articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  No. They're properly formatted anime and manga pages (well Haruhi and Sailor Moon are).—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  They're still franchise articles (well, the Gundam and Sailor Moon are, Haruhi is more like a merged together article), they cover multiple properties, -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah but there's no "Sailor Moon (anime)" or "Sailor Moon (manga)" pages. They're both covered as part of "Sailor Moon" other than episode lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  There are multiple SM articles covering different properties in the franchise, like PGSM, there's a separate anime/manga article covering the animanga in English. Though for SM itself, it is weird that there's an article that covers both manga and anime as one, and a second one for English. Instead there should be an anime article with English as part of it, and a manga article with English as part of it. It would be how non-Japanese properties are treated, instead of just the live action being a separate article (and why would it be a separate article? It's the least notable of the three manga/anime/live) There's sufficient notability to support separate articles, and the current division doesn't make sense by splitting English off instead of splitting anime/manga apart. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Whenever someone attempts to create full pages outside of the "list of" types, they are quickly merged back to the singular page regardless of notability. Dragon Ball Z anyone? This is the critical flaw in A&M's operation and some of members fail to understand the value of such pages and actively enforce this unusual stance that "adaptations" do not need separate pages even if they are notable and can easily fill out an entire page with proper production and casting. The logic of separate pages results in disamb or franchise formats and that upsets some editors; where they make arguments about PTOPIC, like here, where it fails both criteria for PTOPIC. Our coverage of NGE materials is also terrible, but the current state as pushed is the reason why views suffer to relevant material. The manga and chapters have more than 40,000 combined views in the last 90 days, but only the list of chapters is off the franchise page. Even the Neon Genesis Evangelion (video game) has been viewed 5700 times despite NO links from the franchise page. Mere view counts do not dismiss the PTOPIC criteria in situations like this which a disamb or franchise page can resolve, and given the lack of connectivity its amazing the views are this high. The premise for PTOPIC is illogical and will further confuse readers who have no idea what NGE even is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Stop bringing up DBZ as an example. It is a unique case. Not the guiding light. The Sailor Moon manga and the Sailor Moon anime are notable. But they are not independently notable from each other. They cover the exact same content just in different media, and that's dealt with on the chapter and episode lists. However, Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon and the Sailor Moon musicals are expected to get their own articles because they are unique entities within Sailor Moon itself. The fact that the English adaptation has its own article is troubling and I was thinking of sending to AFD a while ago but that's a different story. Casting information belongs on character lists and not the main article. Production may deserve its own section but you will probably be hard pressed to find anything about it. But now back to Evangelion. The anime is the main topic FFS. It is the most visited out of any of the pages and the only reason the franchise page gets any visits is because it is unrightly the primary topic. This "franchise" article should just be a media section included in the article on the anime, but you refuse to agree to that (just as you did with Ghost in the Shell). Producing these franchise pages just ends up in the creation of new articles that do not reference any of the other works in the franchise when they are more related that work than they are to the others. There was never a section on the films on the Evangelion anime article despite the fact that the films are part of the TV series. Maybe in this case the manga deserves its own page but the franchise surely does not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think you made my point. The fact you even consider Sailor Moon (English adaptations) for deletion is problematic. The contents of that page are the only fragments of what should be on the full anime and manga pages. Release, production, and cast information. PTOPIC's examples are unrelated, and criterion 2 supports the application of WP:SS for broad-to-detailed articles with the widest scope to the specific scope. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Why the heck is there an article just on the English adaptation of the anime? It's pointless. It doesn't serve any purpose. Everything on it belongs on other existant pages and it does not facilitate the creation of separate articles for the manga and anime of Sailor Moon.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  So the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of animangaproj is at variance with the general practice of various media franchises outside of Japan... and WP:NOTPAPER. I have no problem if the notability of various properties are low, and we have a single article with split off lists, but for SM, the general notability of the anime and manga are high enough to support separate articles. The franchise article should serve as the entry point, or general overview, and fictional universe article, instead of being the be-all article for both the anime and the manga, with only summary style condensations of manga and anime, and separate subarticles for those. Then we could remerge the English translations article into the expected content articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  We should stop arguing over Sailor Moon because it's not relevant here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  A&M cannot restrict notable topics simply because you do not feel the topic needs more than 1 main and two bad lists. Last time this route was taken you unilaterally merged and edit warred to keep the notable Ghost in the Shell manga combined with the long-standing franchise page. You've shown how your POV is in conflict with Wikipedia's content policies and your intention to swap the pages will lead to you AFDing or just outright redirecting of the franchise as "non-notable" with "NGE already covers the media" by combining the two articles. Also it be pushed by the few active A&M editors who try to enforce this localconsensus which decides that basic notability or layout policies do not apply. To reach this, you misquote and take the spirit of the policies out of their intended context to arrive at conclusions that are illogical and result in a reduction of content and coverage. Outside editors who know the subjects, even briefly, have pointed out that A&M is nearly useless because of this "localconsensus" that goes to extremes by not including information about the cast or basic production credits. Edits like this is why even if does not appear relevant, it is. Because your intentions results in pages like Fullmetal alchemist and that's why the interactions at Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z are relevant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Chris, you and this IP are the only people who have ever argued that all of these things should get their own pages because you use WP:N as the only metric for producing new pages. And I have never once misquoted policy. You are the one who constantly peppers your arguments with Wikipedia shortcuts, despite the fact that they often do not apply in that particular situation or the whole of the policy or guideline suggests something completely different than what you're saying should be done. Casting information belongs on character pages. This is common on all topics where there is a cast. Production credits have their place in the infobox. How puffery goes into a production paragraph or section? And stop bringing up other pages. They are not relevant here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  It is because N and GNG are the metric for stand alone articles and Wikipedia's community is clear about that. The rest would follow WP:CASTLIST or WP:TVMOS. This is an encyclopedia, and is not limited to plot and release only. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  When works of fiction are so intertwined then it's difficult to produce separate articles for such similar subjects and then you fall into WP:REDUNDANTFORK territory. WP:MOSTV seems to suggest that production crew are listed in the infobox and they suggest cast information be treated on a case by case basis. The fact that we discuss print and visual media means character lists are the better option for cast information. Also, WP:CASTLIST is for films. Again, this is you picking shortcuts to suit your needs because one aspect fits what you're talking about when the whole does not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  You only fall into REDUNDANTFORK if all your content is a PLOTdump production and reception information would not be redundant, and would be what makes it notable instead of being a plotdump. Instead such information should be on the franchise article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  I have never said that all should get articles, I only said that Sailor Moon's manga and anime should get articles. I never said anything about Ghost in the Shell or DragonBall. I even said that other animanga properties should show sufficient notability to get separate articles apart from franchise articles, and that if they did not, the franchise articles would be enough. (clearly the Haruhi manga(s) would not be sufficient to sustain an article) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's forget about Sailor Moon or GitS which have their own discussion. There are two matter here is to determine whether the NGE TV anime is the primary topic of "NGE". We offered as evidence a higher pageview number for the TV Anime than any other medium in the so-called "franchise", and long-lasting significance and usage in RS for the TV anime. It is clear that for the world at large, NGE primarily means the TV anime. Now what does the opposite side offer as evidence to the contrary (and I'm talking about verifiable evidence, such as usage in RS, not a mere personal POV) ? And how exactly would readers be "confused" ? The franchise page would still exist, would be linked to in the lead of the TV anime article (which would mention an overview of the various derivative and less important media bearing the NGE name). As it is, the franchise page already forced the majority of readers interested in the TV Anime to click on one more link before reaching the relevant info. What EXACTLY would be the problem in changing the order around to the TV Anime first ? What EXACTLY is "confusing" in the current NGE (Anime) lead ? We need these questions to be answered so that we can finally distinguish between silly OWNership/personal conflicts and actual layout efficiency.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a franchise article as the top article. Also, Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) / Evangelion (franchise) is not a problem either. So it's really a wash as to which article, the TV anime series or the franchise, is better placed at NGE. Considering all the merchandising this franchise puts out, you can easily point to this or that as showing the franchise being the primary, or interpreting it differently having the same sources show the TV anime as primary. We could also determine that NGE/Eva is the primary topic of "Evangelion" which would displace the disambiguation page to Evangelion (disambiguation), and then either the TV anime or the franchise would be the PT for "Evangelion", or split primaries between the two (TV at NGE, franchise at Eva) My personal preference as I stated before, is for franchise articles, in the general case, to be the initial landing point. In this particular case, I also prefer to have the franchise article as the initial landing point. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the franchise being the top article is because it is clear from page views that people want to get to the anime before they want to even bother reading about anything else concerning Evangelion. The anime is what created the franchise in the first place because nearly all of the merchandise has been for the anime, except in recent years where the Rebuild film tetralogy is making a name for itself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Most merchandise (as in different items) is not clearly from the TV anime, many of it is from variations on the theme and clearly not from the TV anime, like the personifications of the Angels, or even based on other merchandising properties (like merchandise based on the video games that clearly do not fit the TV timeline) So, I think most merchandising is not based on the anime, but alternate universes from it. (like the alternate Evangelion mechas) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But do you realize how trivial those things are to the whole of Evangelion? Most of the content regards the anime. Most people think of the anime before anything else. The anime gets just as many if not more hits than the franchise page, showing people go from the franchise page to the anime page 99% of the time. We are providing a disservice to our readers by saying that the franchise that the anime created is more important than the anime.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm torn. The numbers of the anime and the franchise are similar. Also, the anime article has better quality than the so-called parent article. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think the only reason the franchise page has anywhere near as many hits as the anime one is because people typing "Neon Genesis Evangelion" go to it first. The sheer number of people who go to the anime page shows it should be primary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I would Support a schema where Neon Genesis Evangelion is serving as a disambiguation page linking to the moves, anime, manga, games, franchise etc. The reader may be seeking information on any one of those topics and such a disambiguation page would serve as a navigation aid. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  That's how things are basically set up here but it's not an exact disambiguation page. It's one masquerading as a standalone article and that set up is not working at all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Note that Evangelion is already a disambiguation page and that's fine because that covers every media that has "Evangelion" in its name. Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Vast majority of those have Neon Genesis in their name. I do not see the difference it makes in my argument. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  It is pointless to produce a disambiguation page for a topic where all the similarly titled items are inherently related.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  You do not see the problem in having 2 disambiguations in a row ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, Evangelion is already a disambiguation page for all the media having "Evangelion" in their title; however Neon Genesis Evangelion only refers to a handful of works, and of these, the TV Anime is the 1st created, the most referred to in RS, and has the page with the highest traffic (more than 10 times that of the others). We can't have 2 disambig pages in a row, so making the TV anime as the primary topic instead of the "franchise" page, per WP:PTOPIC, is merely the most common-sense and reader-friendly choice. The lead for the TV anime can easily link to the (franchise), (manga) etc pages.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but it is not the first created, you won't have 2 disamb pages in a row and PTOPIC has two criterions of which you are skipping to arrive at the determination on views. The first is debatable because poor connectivity, but the whole is greater than the anime page and NGE has demonstrated to have higher periods of the Rebuild movies than the anime and the anime has been shown to have higher views than the franchise itself. Criteria 1 is shaky here, but criteria 2 is where its pretty clear. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." The long-term enduring significance is NOT the anime, but the media whole which bears multiple same name and prefixed materials. Secondly the examples, like Gdańsk/Danzig or Einstein are unrelated topics, all Neon Genesis Evangelion media is related. It makes little sense to go to a in-depth article when WP:SS says otherwise as well. Remember, it is best to serve the uninformed readers a proper overview than have a knowledgeable fan take one extra click of the hatnote to arrive at the anime. The potential to mislead or omit important topic information outweighs the convenience; especially when many redirect links like Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV) get nearly 10,000 viewers where they want without pause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  The Rebuild movies are not known as "Neon Genesis Evangelion" and they are just adaptations of the anime anyway. Both the usage and long-term significance criteria are satisfied for Evangelion the anime being the primary topic. Everything you constantly list as also having similar titles or whatnot are just adaptations of the first and would not be primary topics. WP:SS does only governs article content within articles. It does not govern what article goes where. You are doing it again. You are picking out policies that you think support your argument but actually have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. And readers do not want to know about the manga or the video games or the soundtracks when they first navigate to "Neon Genesis Evangelion". The fact that the anime page gets just as many if not more hits than the franchise page shows it's what the readers are actually after.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  This may sound rude, but you do not know what you are talking about with Rebuild. It is not "an adaptation" and saying so does not make it true. For the uninformed, the topic-level article is the most educational because it doesn't assume anything and it covers the entire topic rather than what you judge to be "primary" and if your version results in tens of thousands of readers becoming confused about the content within NGE. Hatnote to the anime is perfectly fine, your proposal goes against those policies. You are dodging the issue of DISAMB's broad concept outlines which the Nokia Lumia example is closest to NGE and shows that a topic page is preferred. You want to shuffle and do a lot of things which when picked apart to their individual moves go against the policies, like how you advance a view count only PTOPIC. Your assumption that no one wants the manga is also incorrect tens of thousands of people care and get to the manga page despite only a "list of chapters" being present. All around, show me a policy backs YOUR changes because PTOPIC certainly isn't it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Who fucking cares if I'm right or wrong about the content of the films? Rebuild of Evangelion is a series of movies not titled "Neon Genesis Evangelion" in English or Japanese so they in no way affect whether or not our page titled "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is about the TV series or not. And Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) still exists so I don't know what list of chapters you are talking about. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC still backs up my argument that the article on the anime should be "Neon Genesis Evangelion" no matter how much you nitpick at my lack of knowledge about the content of related works.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  TV anime is the first created (the original concept and the first that went into production), if NGE becomes disambig there will be 2 disambig pages in a row. Page views clearly indicates a predominance of TV anime over all other media (and franchise page views are unreliable just because that's the first page readers get when typing NGE, even when they meant the TV anime). Long-term significance (and most references in RS) goes to the TV anime, if you wanna contradict that please provide a link which can verify it (you seem to mistake "long-term significance" for "last media to date", but PTOPIC clearly says this is a notability consideration). And I don't see how a hatnote or a paragraph in the lead couldn't give a proper overview.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Make whatever shaky argument you want, but PTOPIC is for unrelated terms through and through. DABCONCEPT backs a topic overview because all works bearing the name, prefixed or similar are directly related. How many times do I have to point that out? Forget anything else about PTOPIC, is application is not intended nor suitable for what you describe. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  You are misreading WP:DABCONCEPT. It clearly states "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept [...]". Primary meaning of "NGE" is not a "broad concept" but a single, particular TV show (at least that's my opinion, based on evidence that you failed to disprove). WP:PTOPIC does not mention "unrelated terms through and through" anywhere. If your opposition is based on an erroneous reading of policy pages, I advise you to reconsider your stance here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  How about reading the rest of it and stopping at what you feel is a "broad concept"? The unqualified article should be the broad concept (replace with topic level) because the non-specific to anime, manga, game or related works are all related. While one may be popular because of its core, the directly related media still accounts for more views than the anime. With spinoffs and spinoffs of those spinoffs, we have a franchise. The franchise is a broad article which should contain all the information of its body of works; something which Ryulong disagrees with, even going so far as to repeatedly claim that such franchises are non-notable in apparent disregard of what the page even is and means. PTOPIC is "primary topic" which for DABCONCEPT is the franchise. If you want to argue just PTOPIC without the rest of SS or DISAMB, than you still have problems because the examples of PTOPIC are all unrelated pages which they move to resolve. If you read the entirety of DABCONCEPT you would see that "broad concept" also means "type of thing". In practice, when things have multiple different works of the same name, we disamb or make a concept article. If you cannot address the core issue, than this is pointless and it will have to go to mediation with the GITS issue because it is the same issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  When people talk about Evangelion they do not mean the god damn manga or video games before they mean the anime. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? And stop picking god damn policy pages out of nowhere to support some new argument of yours.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  If you drop this deletion issue of the franchise, than I'll agree to move ONLY if you put the franchise as the hatnote and allow for a sub-section on the directly related and spinoffs until the core dispute is resolved, but you must agree to binding mediation on the subject and whatever subjects come up as a result. Otherwise I will promptly contest and restore the original format on the grounds that the agreement was broken. This is my compromise for this page and this page only. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Where the hell do you see the word "delete" in any of my comments here? Where have you seen me disagree to any page formatting? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not making any agreements with you. This move request will go forward like all move requests.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Your intentions from the A&M Wikiproject discussion involved removing the franchise page and the consensus formed 6 years ago as indicated by Gwern have been completely fine. Numerous editors chimed in that are not as highly active, like Gwern, and cannot get bogged down in wikidrama. Anyways, if you won't compromise then the no consensus to move from the A&M discussion will be mirrored here, the policy clarification needs to go through and the resulting no consensus is to fix rather than delete. I think I was being generous with that compromise, but it was your decision and the last 5 months has shown this conflict, no matter where you decide to bring it up, is still all about one core issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Ryulong, I can understand the frustration you might feel, however if you want the proposition to succeed, you need to gather as large a consensus as possible, so I urge you to respond to Chris' offer at compromise with due civility. As for Chris' offer, if I understand it well, it involves retaining the franchise page (I've always agreed to that), linking to the franchise page in a hatnote, and I'm fine with that. As for the "sub-section on the directly related and spinoffs" (I suppose that's meant to go in the TV anime article ?), no problem as long as there's no redundancy. Chris, I suggest that you ignore Ryulong's last comment and keep the collaborative mindset you adopted...if it helps, maybe you 2 shouldn't interact too directly and go through me instead.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Chris, I have said from the outset that this is a modification of my original proposal. Note how I am not looking to delete anything. I have only proposed switching around pages. I still don't think the franchise page is necessary, but I'm not focusing on that in this discussion. You are the only one causing the drama here now. And Folken, this discussion is forming a consensus and I don't need Chris's approval because he does not realize that I changed my main proposal from the WT:ANIME discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  The only thing that matters to me is that the silly conflict between you two doesn't prevent articles from moving along. No one said you needed his approval, but on WP, discussions are there to reach as wide a consensus as possible, and outright rejecting such a compromise, just because you don't feel like it today, is anything but constructive. What does it really matter to you if he didn't get your proposal at first, as long as in the end, we can solve the issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Yeah, I'm not following all this drama here, but the moves are a sound idea. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The decision will impact hundreds of thousands of views, and will further detour the tens of thousands of readers who want the related content, some of which are the same exact name. No matter the arguments, please consider this as not a case of WP:TWODABS and perhaps look into making one a set index. Also the mere popularity of the work is not the sole criteria of PTOPIC, and PTOPIC's examples are unrelated items with no connectivity other than naming, but the whole view count shows that the subpages are more popular than the anime itself - even tens of thousands of views is suitable reason to not move. The situation before was resolved by a hatnote to the anime; yet the same does not work well in reverse. It would take 3 jumps to get to the manga and 3 jumps to the video game. Right now the worst is a mere 2 hops to the anime from a prominent link at the top. If this move is done, views on the related pages will drop and Google's search results lead right to the anime as the second link. It is not difficult to reach the page and its views sometimes surpass the franchise because of proper linking and incoming traffic that makes it easy for readers. Please consider all options, because popularity is only one aspect of the argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather help the hundreds of thousands of readers who want to know about the anime when they type "Neon Genesis Evangelion" than the hundreds who may want to know about the franchise. Again, the only reason the franchise page gets as many views as it does is because of this unnecessary confusion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris, you pointed out earlier that "even Neon Genesis Evangelion (video game) has been viewed 5700 times despite NO links from the franchise page", no view will drop whatsoever, so why all the drama ? The TV anime itself can easily link to the franchise and all major aspects like the manga, almost nothing is changed, except the first page readers reach, which becomes the one they're statistically more interested in.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The "list of chapters" page dropped to 0 views when it became a sub-section of the manga despite being listed in the manga page. This is simple cause and effect, readers will find the information that they want to provided the search time is reasonable. Given that the pages are not really developed right now, the status quo may not seem pressing, but inconveniencing a minority over a hatnote for a majority doesn't sound fair. Why should someone have to dig to find their target? Yes I could search for Star Trek: The Next Generation if I want that TV series, but I could also search for Deep Space Nine and get to where I want to go over the topic overview, in cases of ambiguous terms that are not 2-way is to go with a full disamb or a broad concept/topic overview. Anyways, I've said my peace and I have other things to take care of now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe people don't care about the list of chapters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disputes to include genres

All right. Someone (whom I suspect that he has using IPs as well as an account, OrangeSniper (talk · contribs), to avoid edit warring) has been repeatedly adding genres without discussion, even though they are backed up by reliable sources such as Crunchyroll. However, since the note requires that genres are to be discussed, I (and numerous other editors) have reverted it back to the two main genres of the series, as some of us find it to be excessive. We should discuss the matter here to avoid an edit war. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Science fiction, drama and action are all redundant to the genres already listed, primarily Mecha. Also, the library section of their website (which is being cited) is user-edited, which fails WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think what it has now "Mecha, Post-apocalyptic" is accurate and sufficient. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Another IP has attempted to add the following "genres": Philosophical drama, Action, Psychological thriller, Deconstruction. I will dispute that Eva is a thriller. And while there are philosophical elements in the series, no reviewer or annalist has placed it in the philosophical genre. Finally, deconstruction is a form of analyst and is not itself a genre. I've already touched on action above, so will not reiterate the point. —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical as a genre... not entirely "unplaced", but I shouldn't open the door to such non-sense. Splitting genres to finer and finer categories is rather pointless, but so would be adding additional genres to allow for its inclusion. The overarching themes are adequate and quickly verifiable in all respectable publications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just "Psychological"? I've often seen brief descriptions of NGE that describe it as a mecha series that turns into a psychological series halfway through[4]; the article talks about how they made a shift toward psychology and the individual characters later on, with plenty of sources. That pretty much covers everything not covered by "Mecha" and "Post-apocalyptic" that users have added. —innotata 03:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but we limit the genres to what is key and most commonly identified. Post-apocalyptic mecha is the setting and genre core - and before you slap others on, you might as well point out it follows a "Monster-of-the-week" genre too. But let's not blanket this page with a bunch of increasingly useless genres. Like "beta male protagonist genre". Which, before all other spurious labels, would obviously win out because Shinji might as well be the archetype of that genre. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Evangelion continuity

Can someone please tell me what is considered "canon" in the original Neon Genesis Evangelion? I know the Rebuilds might be a sequel (or a reboot) to Neon Genesis, but are the manga and video games canon?

I know for a fact that NGE and EoE are canon Alecaluong (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

I agree that we should include "controversy" in the lead but what exactly was controversial? Themes, right? "Neon Genesis Evangelion gained widespread critical acclaim as well as controversy" doesn't make sense at all so maybe we could write something like this:

Neon Genesis Evangelion gained widespread critical acclaim. Regarded as a critique and deconstruction of the mecha genre, the series has become a cultural icon and influenced an artistic and technical revival of the anime industry. Nevertheless, the series themes have also been a subject of controversy.

What do you guys think? UnknownUsername480 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about that logo, I want it gone!

Let me make a point that you need to remember why I hated that logo to exist in this page: First of all I don't like it as for me, its considered as a eyesore rather than a picture to represent an article. Second this is 2017 and people don't care about what picture is to be used on 'AN ANIME ARTICLE' these days since everything needs to be up to date. And third, I replaced that logo with the bluray cover because those also counts via rules. I never liked seeing a logo representing an article alone, it looks mismatched and unpleasing! Other words: its a matter of taste and article aesthetic, and i'm actually enraged for a whole week over it!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm sorry but the logo won't be removed just because you didn't like it. Nobody complained about the logo except you. Not to mention, you were being rude towards @Diogatari: and me. And what taste are you talking about? This is Wikipedia not Anime forum. The article looks beautiful with the logo. UnknownUsername480 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per above. DarkFallenAngel (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The title

TeenAngels, despite claiming to be familiar with MOS:INTRO, you seem to be having trouble following it. Including the Ancient Greek translation of the title in the lead is too much information, especially for the first sentence. The lead should only summarise the key points of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OT: Your User sign seems to have some problem. Seriously: 10 words more about the two-titles-question of the show are too much information? Can you prove that? Are we talking about the normal title - translation with nihongo first sentence or not? Isn't the translation in the nihongo template quite different from the official English title? Isn't a Japanese animated fiction largely distribuited and released under both titles? If your answer is (rationally) "yes", you have the upshot.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you prove that the ancient Greek translation of the title is so important that it deserves to be almost the very first thing the reader learns about the article subject? Popcornduff (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking why the first words of the article are the title itself? Are you seriously asking why we put the nihongo template in the incipit of the first paragraph as in the all others articles of anime series or mangas?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEADALT: "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability ... Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence." The Wikipedia MOS for video games actually recommends putting the Japanese titles as footnotes rather than including them in the lead (see WP:JFN). This is to maintain readability. As far as I know, there's no such guideline for anime or film articles, but perhaps there should be.

Please stop screeching things at me in italics, it makes you sound hysterical. Popcornduff (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stop being repetitive with the title. It's already mentioned once. And the part that it is based on "Classical Greek" is entirely your own original research. —Farix (t | c) 10:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If there's something unuseful for Wikipedia, and for every encyclopedic discussion of course, is to accuse other opinions to be "Original research" with complete basic ignorance of Classical Greek, evidence and source. @TheFarix: My dear Farix, the Ancient Greek origin is explained in two souces, and this make me seriously think you didn't read the article and the sources. Anime intersections by Cavallaro brillantly explain the international title origin from neos, genesis and euangelion. This is mentioned by Yuichiro Oguro, editor of LD edition and style.fm site. And, of course, in the official Gainax site, mentioned in the article and avaiable with Web Archive or Webcitation. But that's not the question: IIRC (I'm currently from mobile phone, sigh) Anno (you know, major writer of this Japanese animated series), in an interview mentioned in Themes (I wrote a brief summary in my previous edit: you read this?) mention the chose of the two tiles as well the double meaning. Can the reader primarly know that the show is released with two titles with two meanings? Is this useful for a brief, encyclopedic sentece fro a reader? The answer is simple and clear. Are the passages mentioned by Popcornduff saying something specific with these? Uhm, I don't think so. Bias is not the answer. And, for last: if with Italics you mean nihongo, you didn't read the first paragraph you constantly want to edit, since the Nihongo is the template. This makes me thing about the very level of your arguments. PS: We are talking about the English/international title. You just removed the brief and necessary explanation of the name of the page. Is LEADALT respected and mentioned with rationality? Uhm. I don't think so. -TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You're rambling. Can you summarise your arguments succinctly, please? Popcornduff (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You're rambling. A h. You're rambling. Are your argoments clear too? Mmm. It's so difficult to read my intervention and use Common sense? Well, let's start: is the title supposed to have a Nihongo (ugh, I t a l i c) template with the original kanji/katakana title and translation? Answer: yes. Clear? Ok: stay tuned. Is, in the NGE case, the kanji and katakana a perfect countrepart of the International title used as title of the Wiki page? Answer: no. And, last but no least: there's some specific [s p e c i f i c: incipit is a brief summa is not a good citation] supposed to be agaist a brief (10 words: yes, you're discussing about ten words) explanation, summarized and incisiva of both largely-know titles? This is Common Sense and rationality. I have to summarize again? You mentioned all this but without context and valid reason to delet the 'superfluo' passage.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

EoE was not the originally intended ending

EoE being the originally intended ending that had to be scrapped in favour of 25/26 is a myth. 26 was the originally intended ending. The myth comes from the fact that the first half of EoE is based on the original episode 25, but it was scrapped due to time, not budget, constraints. Anno, and other members of the production, have consistently presented episode 26 as the originally intended ending, and one that they are satisfied with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldomtom2 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article

Hey guys, could someone please check the edits made by an IP on 21/22 August 2018 for any errors on information about the series. I was looking at the edit history, and it seems that some information, especially about the manga adaptation, was changed quite a bit. I'm not too familiar with the series myself, which is why I'm not editing it, so could someone who knows quite a bit about it please fact check the edits made? I know that one edit made was incorrect factually (in the infobox, the Rebuild films was moved from "Related works" to "Films" and placed it as a subset of EoE), and there's quite a few grammatical, style and spelling errors, so could this please be checked too? Thanks. -Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really a Wikipedia user and don't know anything about editing, but the sentence about the series being adapted from the manga is completely untrue. Evangelion is an original series, a manga adaptation of which was published before the series aired to create interest in the show. 128.230.164.130 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I also checked with a friend who knows more about the series, and also agreed with that being incorrect. Therefore I've changed it back. -Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaking up the Summary

I added the part about Eva from the mecha anime summary to this summary to try and make the paragraph about themes a bit more readable and to give some context to the thematic elements present. Breaking it into two paragraphs seems more natural I think. Just wanted to explain my change, thanks. 86.41.241.92 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)