# Talk:Evangelion (mecha)

Much of the content on this page came from the (now-removed) merged article "List of Eva-Units in Neon Genesis Evangelion", which is now available at Talk:Evangelion (giant robot)/List of Eva-Units in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Do not delete that page - we need it (and its history) for Wikipedia copyright reasons! Noel (talk) 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The countries listed for the G7 countries are one more than the actual count of G7 countries (Russia wasn't part of the G7). Does it mean G8, which includes Russia? Did G8 form before or after End of Eva was made? -℘yrop (talk) 19:19, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

The G8 was formed after the series was created. The information should be G7 + Russia + China 67.71.170.108 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering the information that the authors of this page have presented, which is well known and documented in the fan community, what on Earth is the justification for referring in the title to the Evangelions as giant robots? Giant bio-engineered artificial humanoids comes closer. They are no more robots than the authors of this page, or the readers of it. (talk) 08:34, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is:

It has been speculated that this Eva contains the soul of Touji's sister, though like the idea that Unit 00 contains the soul of Naoko Akagi, this is not universally accepted. Although Touji's sister is not shown to be dead, it is possible that she is alive but insane from the loss of her soul (in this context, there is a theory that Asuka's mother went insane because she lost her soul, in which case soul loss would not imply death.) It is also possible that NERV is just lying and that Touji's sister is dead, since she is not seen afterwards.
My reasons for removing this is, firstly, because it is not officially stated nor inferred. There has been no evidence, shown in the series, for suggesting that his sister's soul has been transplanted into Unit 03. Secondly, Touji's sister was reported to be alive and well by Episode 03 from Kensuke's line, "He said that his younger sister scolded him. She told him that it was the robot that saved our lives." Her injuries were physical, caused by being crushed by debris. If she was well enough to talk with an attitude, it can be assumed that she has stabilized. After that, there has been practically no mention of her condition changing. Touji next appears in ep. 6, he was cheering for Shinji. Ep. 7, he was harping on Misato. Ep. 8, he was annoyed at Asuka. Ep. 9, he was upset with Shinji having to live with Asuka. Ep. 10, he goes on a school trip. Ep. 12, he congratulates Misato for having become a Major. Ep. 15, he knocks Shinji for not cleaning the classroom. Ep. 17, he is recruited for Unit 03. These are his only appearances, and as can be seen, no one of his behaviors indicate anything wrong. If anything wrong did happen to his sister, he would have known right away since he visits her frequently. He pilots Eva because he only wanted better facilities for her. His last words were "Why don't you tell my sister that there's nothing seriously wrong with me?" indicated that when he last remembered, his sister was still functioning, mentally, well enough. Lastly, assuming there is a soul to whom he would be close to, it would most likely be his mother, since it was indicated that he had no mother. In other words, the speculation is just too unsupported and insignificant to be included in the entry. If we were to let this sort of thing from happening, we might as well speculate that Rei likes rock music because she never said she didn't like it. I hope you understand, Ken. -Anon

It's true that Touji's sister is alive and well as of episode 4, but Touji doesn't become a pilot in episode 4.  There is plenty of time after episode 4 for her to die or go insane.  And while we know that Touji's sister was mentally okay the last time he saw her, we don't know when the last time he saw her was, or how often he is allowed to see her.  (And considering how many important plot elements we know the series doesn't mention, it could very well be that he was suddenly kept away from her and we were never told about it.)  There's nothing inconsistent between this idea and what we're told and shown.
There's no *proof*, of course, but there's no proof for a lot of speculations in the articles, including the Akagi in Unit 00 theory, the meanings of the TV ending, and the hypotheses about what the characters represent.  (And the difference between this and Rei liking rock music is that the Touji's sister idea is something that people other than us genuinely offer as a theory, while Rei liking rock music is not.)  If we're going to have speculations in the article at all (and we are), then speculation that is common and not outright false belongs here.  Removing speculation just because it's unproven or unlikely is a recipe for disaster, since all speculation is unproven and all speculation is considered unlikely by someone. Ken Arromdee 07:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
If such speculation is to be inserted into the article, then I would insist that we should be complete in what we start. From my most objective point of view, I see that this bit of speculation that you have added may be removed not because it is speculation, but rather because it is a weak speculation - an easy possibility, because it has very little contact with what we already know. Because of this, in speculating that Touji's sister is the soul for Unit 03, it is in everyone's best interest to include speculation for all the other possibilities of whose soul may be the soul of Unit 03, because Touji's sister is only one of many other possible people. By doing this, we can make this section of the entry more stronger by speculating on who the soul might be. Consider this analogy of a box of shapes that can be chosen to fit into a slot. If we were so dumb that none of us could work it out without experimenting (which we are unable to do), we may speculate as to which shape may fit and why. It would be no use to debate over just a reactangle, however, when we have the square, the circle, the triangle, etc. Similarly, instead of entering a paragraph on just the possibility of Touji's sister being a soul, we could make the paragraph investigate all the other possible souls: his mother (she is presumably dead), his father (he works as a scientist and may have been kidnapped the day before), etc. Only then can the paragraph be useful in a small way. Even then, we'd probably never find out. In my opinion, it was too arduous for me to do the above, and I thought the speculation is relatively too unimportant to really put so much work into. Because of this, I had to remove it. Unless this bit of speculation somehow becomes stronger with more evidence, I don't believe it's really worth having it up there as it is. So, this is the choice I will offer: rewrite the paragraph so it is able to explain how other souls it might be (we will have to use our imagination), or leave the paragraph out. And as a P.S., I don't know any "important plot elements we know" that the series doesn't mention. -Anon
The difference between Touji's sister and Touji's father is that if you go into Google and do a search, you'll find a number of pages which mention the Touji's sister theory and none which mention the Touji's father theory.  That makes including the former a lot more sensible than including the latter--speculations that are common fan theories and speculations that you just made up thuis minute aren't the same thing.  There are pages that mention Touji's mother, so including that would be reasonable, but not every possible character in the show.
As for important plot elements the show doesn't tell us, the fact that fans still argue about whether Shinji accepted instrumentality at the end of episode 26 should demonstrate that the show explains it inadequately.  (Not to mention all the material that is incomprehensible without resort to outside sources like the RCB.) Ken Arromdee 17:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do understand that just because a fair number of people like the hypothesis doesn't make it any stronger as a hypothesis. For the Touji's sister theory, there is a small bit of evidence (Ep. 4) that works against the hypothesis, while, since there is barely any mention of Touji's dad, there is less evidence that he might not be the one, and so, as a hypothesis, is even more possible than Touji's sister. So why is that hypothesis less popular? Because it doesn't sound as nice. If you really are determined to have this hypothesis up, then I would be happy if you wrote it so it sounds exactly as it really is. It's a bit of speculation that is poorly supported, but has gathered some popularity among fans. After all, there is only evidence that suggests it is possible, but no evidence that it actually happens. The possibilities of Touji's other family members should also be mentioned, though; if not to make the section more informative, then to demonstrate that your hypothesis is no more as logically compelling as the others. -Anon
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  You aren't supposed to speculate; you're only supposed to report speculations made by other people.  Making your own speculation is barred as original research.
Assuming you aren't taking the tack that each statement needs a named source (which would mean removing a lot more than just the sister section, and which would gut most popular culture articles and result in a lot of trivial 'according to Google, one popular theory among fans is...' attributions), you still need *a* source.  So the fact that the "Touji's sister" hypothesis is popular while the "Touji's dad" hypothesis is not makes all the difference in the world.  Fans make the former hypothesis, and you can report what speculation they're making.  Fans do not make the latter hypothesis, and including it means you're speculating on your own, which isn't allowed. Ken Arromdee 16:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying, there. Of course, speculation is no research. And if it is research, then the hypothesis of Touji's sister would probably then be of concern, as well. As said on the first line, "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." From what I gather of what you have wrote, the hypothesis is purely fan-based, and I would certainly not consider that a reputable source. Certainly, there are entire fan-made pages that can be found with their own theories to do with Evangelion, but we can see that there are some that can be rather reputable; they add up very well. However, I have yet to see one that touches upon Touji's sister being a soul. If speculation is to be considered original research, we can't have the sister hypothesis. If speculation is not to be considered original research, then hell, we can put whatever speculation we deem appropriate here. In this case, the very least I can expect of the paragraph is a summary on Touji's mother as a soul, followed by Touji's sister. As I may have indicated, I removed the paragraph because I believed it was too incomplete as a new section, and the section itself is too insignificant (or too difficult to prove/disprove each possible hypothesis) to be practical to include. If the section could be improved, then that would be good. If the section could be made more compelling, then that would be good. -Anon
However, I have yet to see one that touches upon Touji's sister being a soul.
Oh, come on, now.  I just did a Google search for 'evangelion "Touji's sister" soul'.  You still get a lot of false hits, but the first page of results has 4 real hits (from 3 separate pages).  I can't find *any* real hits on 'evangelion "Touji's father" soul'.   The sister theory is well-known among fans; the father theory isn't.  (The mother theory is legitimate and can be included.)
It's true that it's fan based, but as I pointed out, if you're going to eliminate fan-based speculation, there are quite a few things you must also eliminate.  If you are going to have speculation at all, the speculation should be fan theories, not random theories that nobody believes. Ken Arromdee 23:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you have misinterpreted what I have been trying to say. I'm not trying to get rid of fan-based speculation. That would be impractical and may be counter-productive. Your argument is that the sister hypothesis is believed by more people than a father one, and you are right, but this isn't just about having Touji's father in this or not. I am saying that if you want, that much, to have this hypothesis, then other hypotheses that are just as viable will also have the right to be put in. And for the very reason that they are not very viable, I am suggesting that this section shouldn't be put in as is. I am trying to be reasonable, of course. I would encourage the expansion of Wikipedia artcles, but I am firmly opposed to putting information that may well be incorrect or misleading. Your section isn't this, I acknowledge, but I do feel it comes uncomfortably close to it. The reason being simply that the speculation is inferentially weak. If I leave it as it is, it can be misleading for those who read, and if I add to it to balance things out, it can very easily be seen as a waste of effort since such speculation on this level is best left ignored, and I'm sure you'd agree, especially about Touji's father. The only option that I thought was best at the time was to take it off. To put it simply, if putting the sister hypothesis on Wikipedia is the only way you can rest, then please present it in such a way which reflects how outstanding it really is. In my opinion, in writing a paragraph about speculating whose soul is used in Unit 03, the most prominant one would be Touji's mother, since that is what the extrapolation of the evidence we get would point us to, first. Only after this should be start exploring the possible tangents. -Anon
"Then other hypotheses that are just as viable will also have the right to be put in" is wrong.  The criterion isn't viability, but popularity.  Equally viable, but non-popular, hypotheses should not go in.
Wikipedia articles are not for making arguments.  However, they can be used to report arguments that other people make.  This may seem similar, but it's not the same thing, and sometimes you cannot include things (like equally viable hypotheses) that you would include if you were making arguments yourself. Ken Arromdee 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ken, please listen to yourself. Wikipedia is not a patron of popularity. Wikipedia has never set a "criterion" for popularity over viablility. If there is a citerion, it would be the other way around. Fact is more important than opinion, especially in an encyclopaedia. And I have never suggested to make arguments on Wikipedia articles, rather emphasised on reporting the information is the most appropriate way. Moreover, the mother hypothesis is, in fact, more popular, anyway. What really matters, and what I have been trying to do, is that we have to come to a decision on a course of action. Again, I will ask you, would you rather write the speculation section to include the other hypotheses, or leave it out, altogether? -Anon
It is about facts.  "People believe this argument" is a fact; making the argument yourself is speculation.  You aren't supposed to speculate, but you can report facts.
So yes, there are popularity criteria.  If an idea is genuinely popular, you can write about it as "people believe this idea".  If an idea is not, you can't do this, even if the two ideas are equally viable.
How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories
For theories:
state the key concepts;
state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.
I am willing to mention the mother hypothesis, since that is also popular.  I'm not going to mention the father one, because it's not. Ken Arromdee 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
So now I see what you're doing. Rather than writing a paragraph about speculating on whose soul may go into Unit 03, you are writing a paragraph on what people believe. This may help in us resolving the issue. If the above is the case, then I'd simply like to argue that the main focus for the section would be better if it was on who the soul might be than on what people believe it might be, since it is much more on-topic with the world of Evangelion over the real-world. If you want to be writing about "theories", I have no qualms if it follows the steps given above. We will firstly have to identify key concepts and the general consensus, though.
From what I know, the key concepts would include that souls are taken from humans to be transfered to an Evangelion (which is soulless, at first) and that the soul is usually that of someone close to the pilot (in all known cases, that is the mother). These are the only certain key concepts that work on all understood cases. (As you can see, due to the lack of boundaries in the case of Unit 03, it is difficult to derive a good candidate.) Next, we find out the "consensus". Concuring with the key concepts, given, it is generally accepted that there is a soul. Next, if we are to find the consensus for a specific person, I believe it would be Touji's mother, in accordance to the "popularity criteria". The second most popular belief, from what I know, would be the sister hypothesis. The rest, I don't think we'll have to include. So, there you have it! -Anon
I would say that a theory or speculation, for it to be a theory, needs to explain something. Knowing whose is Unit 00's soul is important to explain its strange behaviour respect Rei and Gendo. Also in Unit 01, and Unit 02 though thankfully, that's explained in the show. But for Unit 03, there is not much reason to speculate whose soul is. Unit 03 spends very little time functioning before it gets infected, and during that time, nothing is shown about its "personality". What i mean is: What would be explained by saying that Unit 03's soul is Toji's sister's? [Jota Be--193.144.85.123 11:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)]

I personally think it is much more probable that Unit 03 contained the soul of Toji's mother.  Every other classmate in Shinji's school had a dead mother (Hikari, Kensuke) and I think it was implied that so did Toji.  Toji's sister was alive even after Unit 03 was destroyed, and although (as seen with Asuka's mother) you can use part of a soul and leave someone biologically alive, I don't think they needed to do that; plus I think it specifically needs to be the mother.  Of course, this is just speculation.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 09:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
With Toji's sister making an appearance in Rebuild 2.0, this speculation is now officially refuted.--89.147.118.135 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a discussion with User:Toiletduck regarding the consistency of the way the Evangelions should be addressed, and we agreed to the rules he outlined. However the information here says that the official way of addressing the Evas should be Unit n, and I believe that, given the source of the information, that this should be made the standard way of addressing the Evas across all the Neon Genesis Evangelion article. So, should the naming convention outlined here be made the standard one for all the articles? --cheese-cube 09:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The image being used for Eva-04 is actually a fan illustration created by Maher Al-Samkari, author of the Evangelion based fanfiction "Eva:R" (www.eva-r.com).  While the drawing of "MARI" (Mobile Armored Reconnassance and Infantry) is based on an offical Eva-04 illustration by Gainax, I think it goes without saying that it's not appropriate to be using this particular image.  That image should be redirected to an Eva:R wikipedia entry, and the official Gainax image (there is only one official one, to my knowledge) should be used in its place.

Fixed.  I'm quite amused that that image was used.  It was actually one of my old forum avatars, why anyone would use it is laughable to me. --The Eva Monkey
So, is the official GAINAX EVA-04 picture going to be posted?  There is an official Revoltech figure for EVA-04 ([1]), so it stands to reason there must be an official design photograph of some sort to replace it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.53.17.70 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
I've removed the image of Eva 04 that was being used:  Eva 04 is silver, not white.  I don't see how continuing to use an incorrect image will help that.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Silver is harder to depict than white. An image that differs slightly from the description in the text is better than no image at all, in my opinion. Hellbus 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
By that logic I could post a picture of a green-colored Eva and say its "better than nothing". Silver is harder to depict than white? Can't anyone find a silver picture of this thing?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 12:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just keep watching mecha anime, you will find several mech that suppose to be silver yet look like white in show (Cybuster for example). L-Zwei 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Would a picture of an action figure of that Eva work for the article? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I was embarrased to suggest that (although the thought had occured to me some time ago), but yes, I think using a (good quality) picture of the Eva 04 action figure would be a great idea.  (I mean it's really  just the physical twin of Eva 03, but silver instead of black.)....show a pic of an action figure, but also, here's an official Gainax image showing it as silver here, unfortunately its only a headshot.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I could try to locate the box that my Unit 04 figure was in. The picture on the box might work better than a picture of the figure itself. Hellbus 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
We seriously need to find a better picture of Eva 04 which shows its true silver color, not white.  Frankly I'd take an action figure picture at this point.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did manage to find the box, but the pictures on it are not very good. I'd rather not use a picture of the figure itself unless that was done for the other Evas as well. I do have the whole set, if it comes to that. Regarding the existing image, I don't see it as being as much of a problem as you do. It's already noted in the section that Unit 04 is silver. Adding gray shading to parts of the existing image might make it look more silvery, but the resulting image, if used, might be a copyright violation. Hellbus 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A trimmed version of this wallpaper might be useful. It's only a shade lighter than the official one.--Amitakartok (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
honestly, we don't need an image of Eva unit 04. We need images of the most common Eva units, such as Eva unit 00, 01, and 02.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll try to upload them but no promises; they'll most likely get deleted very quickly. I uploaded the new Evas from Rebuild 2.0 and I immediately got a notice from YOU that I should take them down "due to levels of importance and relevance" (they're from a spinoff so they shouldn't belong here or something like that). Last week, I added a fair use rationale to keep them from getting deleted so they remain for the time being. Also, which versions should I upload? I'm not talking about a bazillion pictures (you said we can't have too many), just one of each: Unit 00 (orange, blue, Rebuild), Unit 01 (already have one up), Unit 02 (original, Rebuild version's head), Unit 03 (either will do fine), Eva Series (one group pic since we can't tell which is which). Is this arrangement OK?--Amitakartok (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
They're Evas of the new remake. I know there is at least an image of Eva unit 00, 01, and 02 together. The Eva images could stay, but only if they were together which would be difficult. Let's wait until they reveal the recent one correctly.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In this article there seems to be an explicit relationship between the S² engine and an angels ability to regenerate, with the eva series being treated as an anomaly, however I wonder if this is the case. Firstly, regeneration is taken to be an ability posessed by all angels even though it is only demonstrated by two of them (the 3rd and the 7th).  I can't complain about this because in the first episode this ability seems to have been be already known and documented by NERV. However it is unclear whether it is supposed to be different or more profound than the natural regenerative capabilities of any living creature.  There is certainly no instance of the almost instant regeneration displayed by unit 01, with Israfel requiring six days to restore itself completely.  Secondly, I can't find any other reference to the phenomenon of regeneration being related to the S² organ, either in the series or in the fan community.  That's not to say it's not there, which is why I haven't removed the connections made in the article.  I was just wondering if anyone knew why that link was made in the first place.  As a final note, Unit 01's regeneration in episode 14 is definitely not brought about by the S² organ, as it regrows its arm before assimilating the S² from Zeruel.  -User:McFaust 03:32, 24 December 2005

That's a good point. In addition, even if it does allow regeneration (rapid or slow), it seems like the Production Models do regenerate. When Asuka is attacking them in EoE, she chops one in half with a Heavy Lance, and another's leg off. Yet those wounds can't be seen later on, when they form the Sephiroth or the Tree. Is there any official documentation on either S^2 engine or Production Eva regeneration? Spencer F. 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That was an animation error, mentioned in the article. After that shot you can see that the units are, in fact, damaged. Hellbus 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

each Eva should have an image in their sections... (00 should have two, one blue, one orange)

should pictures actually be uploaded, Two images would be required. One for the original appearance (ass seen in the series). Two for their Rebuild counterparts. (three for Unit 00)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEncounter (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't 00, 01, and 02 have separate articles? I noticed that other anime series have articles for individual mecha (especially the over-articled Gundam Seed). 67.71.170.108 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Typicaly speaking, anime mecha are divided into articles specifying their leniage. A zaku is different from a gelgoog which both have a wide variety of variants present in their respective articles. In that regards, all the Evas are products of a single development project consisting of an early prototype, late prototype, three production models, and nine mass-production models. In that regard, they are the evolution of a single design.192.168.0.102 23:49, 18 March 2006
Unit 01 probably should have its own article, since it has a personality, and is a non-speaking character on the show. As for comparison with Gundam, these are cyborgs, not fully mechanical things. The other Evas don't warrant their own articles. 132.205.44.5 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just re-watched the first 24 episodes of the anime, and found no inconsistencies with the heights of the Evangelion.  They were always, always, always roughly 40 meters tall.  (That translates to roughly 10 stories of a building.)  Any appearances of greater height seem to be just that -- "camera" tricks, combined with the fact that 40 meters is truly, awesomely, nearly inconceivably tall.  Even the scene with the destroyers - those are about 15 meters breadth, IRL.  For the Evangelions, that would be a little more than shoulder width!  Anyhow, I'm definitely going to adjust the main article to reflect this.  Too many people (in fanfiction) are arbitrarily setting the 200m mark as though it has as much support as the 40m mark.  (As of yet, I've seen nothing to support it.  Then, I haven't gone and re-watched the various end-of-evangelions.)  --Obsidian-fox 10:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the rebuild of eva movie and found that the height is kind of variable. For instance, when eva 01 was fighting Shamshel, it got knocked down and almost crushed 2 or shinji's classmates, assuming the they are 1.5 meters tall, we can deduce that the each finger of the eva is between 3-5 meters in length. Now if the evas are really 40 meters tall, that means that it's body is approximately the size of 8-13 fingers lined up. This is obviously not true since measuring from my body (approximating the eva) 8 fingers only goes up to my thigh. So based on this measurement, an eva is atleast 80 meters tall. Ofcourse there are other inconsistencies, such as when a eva was fighting on an aircraft carrier. Typical aircraft carriers are usually 300-400 meters in length, and i seem to remember that eva 02 jumped onto one in the episode, the proportion does not suggest that the eva was 40 meters in height. thus based on my 2 rudimentary analysis, i think it is better to say that evas are between 40-200 meters in height and I shall reflect that change. 129.2.206.65 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree; Evangelions clearly change size based on the situation, mainly for cinematic effect.  Sometimes they're taller than buildings, and sometimes they're climbing buildings.  I support listing a range rather than a definite height, and giving the reasoning behind it. Gamer 2k4 (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is "Reigoki" used along with "Shugouki" and "Nigouki"?  The Japanese dialogue actually SAYS "Shugouki" and "Nigouki" but for Unit Zero they say "Zerogouki," not "Reigouki."  Repeatedly.  In fact, I've never heard them use Reigouki, ever.  Is this in the manga or something?  Is it possibly just reading the kanji for zero as "rei" even though they decided to just use a kanji for the word zero?  I've noticed that the Evangelion-related entries consistently reference "Reigouki" (the Rei Ayanami article for example) so I figured I'd ask first.  72.192.237.134 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Ismail

As an added note to this (same poster as note above here, I looked in the history.  It seems people dropped "zerogouki" because "they mean the same thing."  Even if that's true, the article as it stands claims that they address it as "reigouki" in the show when quite simply they do not.  I realize it may mess up other wikilinks, but rather than persist in a wrong term, we should fix up those other wikilinks also.  It isn't ever called "reigouki" verbally in the show at all.  It's called "zerogouki" so the article shouldn't claim it is called reigouki erroneously.  72.192.237.134 Ismail
Someone saw what I said and fixed those... I fixed a lingering instance of reigouki, but there's the infobox at the bottom, which seems to be a separate entity from this page.  Where can I go to edit that?  (For that matter, do we need an Evangelions category if they all go to the same page?)  72.192.237.134 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Ismail
Fixed the infobox. EASports 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike;
it really is inconceivably tall. the sheer weight of something that large would topple buildings and everything around it. Here's a good way to find it's size: Get a picture of the head next to the pilot. This would show the head being abouth four meters or 12 feet. This is about the same size of a larger gundam unit.

Is there an explanation for why the MP Evas are able to reactivate after being killed? (since it is said that their S2 organs do not regenerate)--Dch111 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really, but I think that they're more versitile and can live without certain parts of their bodies. However, you should notice that none of them had their core broken, so they didn't really die and at the end when they impale themselves with the lances of longinus they don't reactivate. --L337M4G3 7:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good observation...that may indeed be the key. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I do question how the one she cut the legs off of and sent flying could still move around, but I guess because it had wings its okay (they should still have shown it missing legs).  Of course, the first one, which she busted its skull with a flying leap then wrang the blood out of like a rag....how could that thing have lived?  Yeah, well, it's just "they've got S2 Engines" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Maybe it has something to do with Kaworu, since his name was on the dummy plugs and he was an angel.The Twilight Goddess 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought. It is the only true mecha of the series.

No it has its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

While I can't argue with the logic, I think it's a little excessive to note it in the article, as I don't think their Unit #s are ever discussed in canon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see some onscreen graphics in EoE that identify them as Units 05 to 13, but it is never said which is which. The names are never spoken by any characters (except when Misato mentions that some parts delivered to NERV were intended for 05 and 06), so I can agree that the name translations are not really necessary. Hellbus 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well, I fixed it.  P.S. I"m totally psyched about the Rebuild of Evangelion teaser trailer due out tomorrow. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 14:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be named "Mecha?" Evangelion Units aren't really mecha. They are mostly organic, closer really to cyborgs than robots. If a sutable term cannoth be agreedd on I suppose it's ok, but the title is sort of misleading. (Animedude 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I don't know that a suitable alternative has been devised. In terms of size and application, I guess it works to call the Evas mechas, ones with a very different method of construction compared to others. Hellbus 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree the page should be renamed to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion_(Cyborg)" and they should be identified as Cyborgs as opposed to mechas. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, it is a failing of the Wiki if it is identifying something incorrectly and needs to be corrected. This was actually my reason for coming to this talk page. ----
When I think of "cyborg" I tend to think of something human-sized, like the Borg from Star Trek. "Mecha" makes me think of something huge, which is what the Evas are. I think the mecha/cyborg argument is just semantics and not really necessary. Hellbus (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the common imagery associated with 'mecha' is closer than that of 'cyborg' does not mean that it should be called a mecha. It's akin to calling whales and dolphin fish, the imagery may be appropriate but it is not correct. --193.61.104.4 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You're being a bit pedantic here. Hellbus (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of a bad habit and I don't mean to sound condescending, sorry if I gave you that impression. I know the Evas are classified as Mecha by numerous sources but if people are assuming/calling them the wrong thing that doesn't mean we have to. All I'm asking is that the two instances where they are refered to as mecha be changed to cyborg along with the page title. I'm ok with the main NGE page refering to them as mecha as it is what the majority of the public know them as but if someone is going to look into more detail I feel it is important to use the correct term.  --193.61.104.4 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I know the Evas are classified as Mecha by numerous sources... That's the thing. If the sources calls them mecha, Wikipedia can't call them something else. This is why we have WP:V,  WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 10:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, here are two excerpts from the Mecha article. "Mecha, also known as meka or mechs, are walking vehicles controlled by a pilot." "Not all mechas need be completely mechanical. Some have biological components with which to interface with their pilots, and some are partially biological themselves." I don't think there's any need to argue this further. Hellbus (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What a strange article. I don't think I've ever seen 'meka' used. --Gwern  (contribs) 13:49 12 June 2009 (GMT)
While Evangelions are mostly-organic cyborgs and not "machines", the series was directly meant to be a sort of satire/breaking conventions of the "Giant Mecha" genre.  The same debate might be raised for "can we say Farscape is "a Space Opera set on a spaceship, if spaceships are machines and Moya is organic?"  Evangelions should be categorized under wikipedia's "mecha" category because 1-it's not like there's another large category to put it in; we aren't arguing Giant Mecha vs. Real Mecha; instead, the "category" Eva would fit in would be so specific that no one could easily find it. 2-it's clearly meant to be playing on the conventions of the "Giant Mecha" genre, and thus falls in that category.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In the article the Evas are call cybernetic but (to my knowledge) that word has never been used. Ritsuko used the term “synthetic being” and the manga used biomechanical, so wouldn’t these be better terms?The Twilight Goddess 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Those terms (especially Ritsuko's description) might be good to add to the article, but I think "cybernetic" is the best (and simplest) way to describe the Evas since they are cyborgs in the purest sense of the word - beings comprised of both organic and mechanical components.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
They're mostly Angel-clones which then got grafted with all sorts of circuitry and stuff to control them, etc.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'Somewhat decent' is a pretty ambiguous way of describing an armour's effectiveness. I feel justified in describing the limits of its effectiveness. I am, of course, open to constructive criticism. Also, regardless of their classification as mechas, i think it's also important to note the fact that this classification is, indeed, debated. 
Minor compared to other eva 'issues' you say, willbyr? So are you fine with classifying whales as fish? Or maybe we should just call them 'obese dolphins'. May i suggest you ask for feedback from other users before making changes based purely on personal bias? 203.54.235.69 06:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is keeping the amount of material that is "debatable" as low as possible.  With NGE, it's impossible to avoid mentioning things that are controversial and spark debate among fans, but in comparison to some of the really major topics, whether or not the Evas are true mecha seems very minor and ticky-tacky.  It's not a huge concern to me, and if others are fine with having a note about it, then that's cool.  I do like your last edit about the Evas' armor, that is much better in terms of tone and descriptiveness than the previous edits. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Point noted. Melody from discord 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone that can read kanji go here and verify that the two new Eva units featured in this game are named "The First Type" and "The Second Type", as is suggested in the game's article?  The other link in the article is to a gaming blog that doesn't seem to give any really useful information. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

They are more or less called The First and Second. There's no mentioning of a "type" Anyhow, these two new EVA units are named after the Celestial stem. So i don't know if my romanization is completely correct. --Refuteku (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was the image of Unit 01 deleted?  I thought I had the fair use covered on all the images, especially the screenshots from the series... Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was an admin mistake.  I am in the process of correcting it.  With a little luck it should be back soon. --Pekaje 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The images for Evangelion: Death and Rebirth and The End of Evangelion were also removed; will these be fixed as well? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes they will, but it will unfortunately take some time, as references to the deleted images have often been removed from the articles, so now I have to go through a batch of some 30 images accidentally deleted by an admin (not all of which have been undeleted yet) to see if I can find where they originally belonged.  If you find any other that have been deleted in this way, by all means let me know where they belonged. --Pekaje 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally got through them all.  Certainly one of those things you don't want happening too often ... :-) --Pekaje 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you all have desires to see this article advance, I'd recommend significant copy editing, particularly in light of WP:LEAD. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point...as I get time, I'll see what I can do about working on the lead section. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the discussion about culling excessive non-free images from the Evangelion articles, see here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to word it and I'm uncertain whether it's worth pointing out, but Unit 00 is the only Eva that never opens its mouth. I thought that was a bit odd. Hellbus (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd never thought about that, but you're right...I don't think it's enough to warrant a mention in the article unless a sourced discussion is somewhere out there, but it's an interesting point. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I tinkered a bit with what V5 added, and I think it works pretty well. Hellbus (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Some have just waved their hand and said "that doesn't mean it doesn't have teeth"...but really, if you look at the "failed Eva prototypes" in End of Eva...some of them clearly have teeth and some don't appear to have conventional "mouths"...leaving us to speculate at the exotic appearance of Eva-00.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

i think a better name should be suited for this article. i suggest we name it "List of Mechas in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Sound good to all of you?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jet Alone and the Trident are covered in the NGE glossary article.  I see no pressing need to muddy this article by moving those two mecha here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If we summarize the glossary by moving items to a more better suited area then we mightmove all articles to GA. which is WP:EVA's goal is it not? Anyways, are you in favor of the name change?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But what makes this a better location? I can understand the reasoning - 'let's put all the robot thingies in one place', but I see the case as being 'let's put all the quasi-Angels (Evangelions) in one place, and the actual robots in another'. --Gwern  (contribs) 21:12 27 December 2009 (GMT)
For now this article will be solely dedicated to EVAS. other objects that are not EVAS do not come in unless related to EVAS. the original plan was to organize the article and remove unnecessary details. Considering the evangelions or quasi-Angels are more known as "EVAS" i think we should name is list of EVAS of NGE.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the article is going to remain solely for the Evas, then I don't see a need to rename it.  The current title has done just fine for quite a while now; it's simple, explicit about what the subject matter is, and even a cursory examination of the opening paragraph will let readers unfamiliar with the term know that NGE is the series that they come from.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the name is confusing. Also we could put this as a List article, so list of EVAs in NGE is a better title. Evangelion (mecha) would be confusing and the word Evangelion is also one of the names of the series and albums. the Evangelions are also so most commonly known as "EVAs" in both the anime and to the public. Evangelion (mecha) would be confusing
If we can, we can add the weapons EVAs use onto here if possible.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how the title is confusing.  The "(mecha)" clearly designates that that's what the article is talking about, and "Evangelion" is more technically correct than "Eva" or "EVA" (which, if I remember right, wouldn't be able to be used in the title of the article anyway because of the formatting rules).  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
true, but like i said, it's more appropriate to go by "list of NGE [insert here]" or "List of [insert here] in neon genesis evangelion". it's the same reason why Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) was moved to List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. merely saying (mecha) in the end wont help. 
also, the title insist in being singular rather than plural. Which might make some or all readers believe that the article is about only one evangelion, or that only one exist in the entire NGE series. that's why "list of NGE evangelion" or "list of NGE Evangelions" would be most appropriate, considering that the name is much more clearer and easier to understand.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What about "List of mechas in Neon Genesis Evangelion?" This could take care of the article covering both the Eva units and Jet Alone, etc. Hellbus (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
that was my first proposal. i guess  the article can be about mechas rather than evangelions. does anyone agree?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
(doing a bit of a flip-flop)  I'm of two minds on this.  I like having the Evas with their own article and the Jet Alone and Trident as part of the glossary article, but at the same time, after some consideration of the structure of the article, it might be better off converted to a "list of mecha" article and thus including the Jet Alone and the Trident...hmmm.  If the consensus is to convert the article to a list, I'm not gonna grouse about it.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What I like about the current article and title is that it clearly conveys that it's a specific important NGE concept; 'list' just sounds like a grab-bag of random material, with no focus, theme, or unifying idea. And bringing in Jet Alone and Trident lumps them in with things they shouldn't be lumped in with. Any Eva is more important than those 2 put together (they have zero relevance to the overall plot). --Gwern  (contribs) 14:25 12 January 2010 (GMT)
i had thought the same about the main article, but everyone disagreed (not including that IP).  it's not as clear as you think. like i said before the name is singular, not plural, which would confuse some people seeing as how there are many articles named "Evangelion". 'List' is more than just listing, you would mention concept designs, terminology or other. the thing is, this article is already in a form of list.  Also EVAs are important, but that would be opinion. they are just giant beings people ride on. adding all mechas here wouldn't hurt. we could divide them into sections, evangelions in one, and trident and jet alone in "other", and why shouldn't they be lumped together? they are all mechas.  It's just like List of Hollows in Bleach, even though the list talks about hollows in general, there is more mention of Arrancars because they have had great importance in the plot, while other hollows that have obtained notability to be mentioned are merely in "other". Same could work here.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not opinion that Evas are important; they're discussed in a tremendous fraction of critical reception & appraisal, and receive a great deal of attention from the creators themselves. I mean, come on - it's a mecha series after all, the mechas are going to be important. If they weren't, it'd be a funny mecha series.
As for what the Bleach people do, I dunno. I don't know anything about Bleach beyond the first few dozen episodes which I bothered to watch, so I don't know that their choice of organization is relevant to an Eva article. --Gwern  (contribs) 22:09 16 May 2010 (GMT)
One, I can't take you're word for it is what i meant so it's you're opinion. verify that they are enough to have their very one article only to evangelions, and then we'll see. A list of Mecha would be more ideal for trident and others. Or make another Mecha article and a Evangelion subsection. We can't have the Evangelion glossary have every single detail about the series. i'm not entirely sure it passes notability. sure it  has a number of refs for certain topics in the glossary, but it doesn't compare to the rest. Some of the topics would have to be merged here or other articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
List of hollows in bleach was more of an example. not meant to be related to the article directly03:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

After removing some trivial and original research info on the Details section (which i might change the section title for something more broad), i see now that the kanji isn't a separate name form the English name. therefore i will but nihongo templates onto the names. I also removed heavy original research and some trivial information that will not help the sections. there is still some original research but left it in because i thought it could be verified.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Also evangelions are most commonly known as EVA not evangelions. So I'll change all of it to EVA. And i do need a little help finding Evangelion kanji.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Are they known that way? Consider:
CSE hits:
"EVAs"
"Evangelions"
Unfiltered Google:
"EVAs"
"Evangelions"
Regardless of which pair you pick, "Evangelions" seems to be the more common plural - which makes sense since "EVA" is not an acronym and is easily confused with the common SF/space term EVA. --Gwern  (contribs) 22:16 16 May 2010 (GMT)
I'm not so sure, but EVAs seem to be more known for in google and i'm not so sure how to use CSE hits. Anyways, in-universe they are most commonly known as EVAs aswell. i hardly heard the term "evangelion" within the seriesBread Ninja (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's assume that 'Evangelion' is a rare term in the series. You're still wrong to favor 'EVA' over 'Eva':
[07:54 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVA literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc
     41     371    3340
[07:55 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Eva literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc
    285    2506   22358

[07:55 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVA adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc
      0       0       0
[07:56 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Eva adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc
    291    2434   22674

[07:57 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVAs adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc
      0       0       0
[07:57 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Evas adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc
     51     413    4053

[08:25 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVAs literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc
      3      36     275
[08:25 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Evas literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc
     19     174    1475

--Gwern  (contribs) 00:26 20 May 2010 (GMT)
i'm not trying to assume anything other than what is shown in front of me. But anyways, it doesn't matter if they are all caps or not. i thought in the subs, they were shown with all caps. Plus i thought EVA was written in there capsules aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not trying to assume something, but then you seem to assume something about the subs. Hm...
Why should we use 'EVA'? It's not an acronym. It's not more correct. It's not easier to read. It's not easier to write. It's not more common, as I've already demonstrated. --Gwern  (contribs) 19:19 28 May 2010 (GMT)
acronyms usually have periods under them. i'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, please assume good faith. I don't think it matters whether its easier to write and Easier to read is matter of opinion. You seem to ignore the sub and capsule statement. but again, it doesn't really matter. so your last post was just unecessaryBread Ninja (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
what i mean by "it doesn't matter", i'm basically saying it's alright to change it to Eva. but we can't ignore that there are results with them being referred to EVA so it should still be mentioned in there.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms quite frequently have no periods, not that I can see how periods are relevant. ('NASA'. 'FEMA'. 'BP'. 'USA'. 'UK'. 'ROK'.) But if you want to mention somewhere that they are sometimes called 'EVAs', knock yourself out. --Gwern  (contribs) 22:41 28 May 2010 (GMT)
I'm just saying not everything is an acronym just because it's call Caps. there's also project EVA, the series name is in all caps. so i tihnk it's pretty safe to include it in as jsut one mention of it.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some fan speculation about the sudden appearance of this Eva. More specifically, it has been noted that Unit 08's head armor is somewhat similar to Unit 01's godlike form at the Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0 finale. There are rumors that it might actually be Unit 01 in a different armor to restrain it, like what the tons of bandages were used for in episode 20. Can anyone confirm or refute that? If it turns out to be untrue then it will most likely be piloted by either Mari or Rei since they both lost their respective Evas (Unit 05 is gone completely while Unit 00 only has a pair of legs left - WAY beyond the Hayflick limit).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.147.118.135 (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 

The only real way to confirm or refute any of it is to wait for the third film to be released. Hellbus (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
True. Maybe the film will also confirm whether the similarity of the Mark.06 to the old Lilith is accidental or the Eva was derived from it, similarly to Unit 01.--89.147.118.135 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If the subtitles in 2.22 are to be believed, then the 'quickening' of Unit 08 is its 'birth' making it a different Eva than Unit 01. How much different is to be determined. However it may be Unit 01 being 'reborn' so to speak, and i think that is what people are guessing, if perhaps falsely. I personally believe its is merely when it is going to make its debut appearance and people are reading too much into it but Evangelion has thrown me through a loop on more than one occasion. TheEncounter  —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC).
Well, there is no room for speculation here in wikipedia. That's why i have removed almost half of the information in some of these articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Added all the Evas that appear in 3.0 and gave them their own section; as the film just came out, there aren't many (if any) options for citing sources yet. Still, make sure any information you might add is actually in the film because there's lots of misleading speculation among non-Japanese sources; that will most likely remain so until the official English release which is not announced yet.--Amitakartok (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Evangelion (mecha). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630193917/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/ to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Evangelion (mecha). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202123427/http://www.evacommentary.org/images_production/ryousanki_design.gif to http://www.evacommentary.org/images_production/ryousanki_design.gif
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Evangelion Test Type-01 at the site of Shanghai Metallurgical & Mine Machinery Factory.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the changes make sense to me, but this still isn't clear:

Two years before airing, Gainax published a project presentation document to find backers entitled Kikakusho (企画書, "Proposal"). Included in the initial draft were initial unit designs, detailed explanations of Nerv departments [...]
Is this the legitimate title of the document? It sounds like the general name used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: That is how Evangelion Chronicle (vol. 1, p. 26) calls it. Its title is just that: 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (仮) 企画書, or 'New Century Evangelion (Tentative name) Proposal'. Shortened in the sources as simply 'Proposal' (e.g. Newtype 100% Collection, p. 85).TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 Done. I changed it to the full name. Interesting source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evangelion (mecha)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article. It's kinda so it'll take some time. So far it looks good based on what I read but I suggest cutting some parts related with WP:Plot considering it details information I never heard about in the actual series or movies.Tintor2 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead
First of all the lead explains every single character who pilots the Evas with Mari's exception. Since this is meant to be an introduction I would say that "The Evangelions are pilot by "Childs" included the protagonist Shinji Ikari and other supporting character.
The image could explain the name of each Eva.
"classified by critics as cyborgs rather than mecha in the traditional sense." could be moved to the last paragraph since it deals with critical response rather than in-universe information.
Conception
First mention of Anno needs a wikilink alongside the anime's title.
Rei has a wikilink but it isn't explain who she is. I think Shinji is mentioned but not explained neither.
Mazinger too like "Go Nagai's mecha Mazinger"
The Proposal material is kinda fan cruft material since the audience is never told about it. I would suggest either trim it or removing it.
Characteristics
I would suggest trimming the amount of in-universe information like "Evangelion are giant humanoids clad in thick protective armor. The constitution of an Evangelion unit is identical to a human being's, except for size: each Evangelion is equipped with a nervous system, a skeleton and a circulatory system. On the fingers of 01, for example, there are nails similar to human ones".
Same with the amount of content focused on their weaponry.
@TeenAngels1234: That's all for today. I'm not entirely confident but maybe the content of Original series could also be trimmed since it explores most episodes in the series.Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2:I tried to do my best. The part about the Proposal or the in-universe information I would honestly say to leave them, because they are either hinted at in the other sections (e.g. the various equipment) or are useful for understanding other scenarios in the final version (e.g. the Eva Series, the anime-otaku question).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The commentary on "Rebuild of Evangelion" could easily be moved to the main series too and reduce small paragraphs and at least call Rebuild of Evangelion "Introduced in Rebuild of Evangelion".
Everything in the rest of the article seems fine. I would suggest tonning down the clothing from merchandise.Tintor2 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That's all.@TeenAngels1234:

@Tintor2: Sure. Well, it would be more functional. I hope it works.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: Passing review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)