Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 2

message: The whole Evangelion section on Wikipedia suffers from this problem. Editors aren't just talking about what happens on screen, they are presenting their opinions on the implications of what happens on screen. Since the implications of anything in this anime are hard to assess, at best, that makes such judgements opinion. Since there's more than one possible conclusion to be drawn from so many things about this anime, the fact that editors frequently draw unwarranted conclusions displays bias. Since I happen to disagree with some of the conclusions drawn, I'd rather not see them in Wikipedia. I don't want to see my own preferred conclusion in Wikipedia either, what I'd like to see is an acknowledgement of plurality. In short, a Neutral Point of View. I've no intentions of getting into the middle of this myself, because I don't have a better version of the text in question to present, but I do ask you to consider whether you are drawing conclusions, rather than stating facts.
Besides, I've been scared off. I posted some changes once, to find them almost instantly reverted, as though they represented vandalism. Whether that was a justified revert or not, I'm not inclined to get involved in Wikipedia again, just yet. Soluzar 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my primary complain in the peer review was that the articles lacked references. Without references, everything is assumption and/or original research. In this article's case, I believe you can add a  template after every sentence you think is original research, or directly add the  and  at the top of the article. Please do give Wikipedia a second chance by editing again. Remember to always assume good faith when others do something you don't agree. If your edit is reverted, talk in the article's talk page about why you think your version should not be reverted. If nobody complains after a couple of days, go ahead and do it again. Remember that nobody owns articles, so they can't just keep reverting you without explaining why. If you have any doubts, just drop a line at my talk page. -- ReyBrujo 06:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree that there is a lot of opinionated content in the NGE articles, having tons of fact and citation tags throughout each article will make them hard to read and look really bad. Something that might not be a bad idea is to put disclaimers in each section that contains a lot of obviously POV and/or opinionated content and limit the fact and citation templates to the info that screams out for the appropriate tag until such time as that material can be removed or edited. Just a thought. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually find the intrusive citation tags to work better than the article or sections tag. Users are more likely to try to get the citations required by the citation tags than the ones at the top of the article. In example, if you add something, and there is already a [[tl|unreferenced}} tag at the top of the article, nothing happens. However, if someone adds a sentence, and immediately after someone else adds a citation tag for that statement, either the user references his addition, or the addition is removed after a week or so. -- ReyBrujo 03:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV right out of the window 

message: * No fair use rationales
* No references
* Wild links (these -> 1)
* Some possible problems with tenses
The content looks good, but it needs to be referenced. Highway Return to Oz... 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is needing a fair use rationale? I checked the images, and aside from the note about resizing the pic of the characters, all of the images have fair use templates associated with them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No image has a fair use rationale. -- ReyBrujo 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Figured out what is being asked for...if no one else gets to this and I have time, I'll see what I can do about it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to work on the tense issues but it's tough enough to navigate tenses in Evangelion to begin with and the article isn't any better nor is it easy ot make it any better. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: The intro says "Neon Genesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Shin Seiki Evangerion?) is a controversial and highly popular Japanese animated television series," however there is no controvery section and any reference to why it was controversial is shallow at best so either that wording should be changed or good info should be added about it, same with it being popular and this has to be real sourced info not opinion. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. At least it requieres a reference. Or a section that says why its controversial. I can see why it can be controversial, but I haven't read anywhere about that being an issue in NGE. --Guille2015 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: I'm doing a big edit to reorganize the page (it may take a couple of days to finish--I promise I'll try not to remove anything that makes sense although I might condense it). This will mainly involve making the plot section reflect the plot-- moving/removing interpretation to other sections; also, removing details that are on other pages, like the meaning of Human Instrumentality Project, etc. The plot will need to be checked over. It's been over two years since I've seen the series, and while I remember it in general some of the specifics are fuzzy. So please, someone, anyone help correct it-- but don't spoil too much, eh? :) --HKMARKS 06:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to read through the edits in detail, but just glancing through the edits you made, it looks like you did a good job. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay! found somewhere to put it. -HKMARKS 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit for organization 

message: I don't see why ReDeath needs to be merged into the main article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReDeath 

message: On a related note, I've proposed a new version of the template on Template talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion. Basically to get rid of the lists of Evas and Angels, since they don't have individual pages. See that page to discuss. -HKMARKS 00:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: The Other words sub-section belongs in Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary though three of the terms are not in there (Eva, Child, and Angel). If there are no objections I'll add what's currently on the main page for the missing three terms to the glossary page, remove that sub-section add the link to the glossary page to the section, and rename the entire section (while removing the lead in to the section and the title sub-section heading) to Translation notes on the title since I lack originality and can't come up with anything better. --Miss Ethereal 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lead-in should be moved to International releases, rather than deleted. Agree on the rest. -HKMARKS 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done as per discussion. --Miss Ethereal 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Translation notes''' section 

message: The International releases section seems a bit excessive... is it really necessary to have so much detail on past TV broadcasts? There's probably some value there from a historical POV but it looks a little like an old TV Guide as is. -HKMARKS 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking of a way to handle this, and the best idea that I can come up with is moving this section to the List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. It seems like this may belong there. If there are not objections than I'll move it today... or tomorrow. --Miss Ethereal 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been done. --Miss Ethereal 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International releases 

message: I was going to wikify a few of the references, but there is something about the first one.
written before NGE began being produced by Gainax, as recorded in Neon Genesis Evangelion Volume 1, Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, translated by Fred Burke. August 2003. 
When I look up the ISBN on Amazon.com, this is what they have:
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: VIZ Media LLC; 1 edition (December 6, 1998)
Language: English
ISBN: 156931294X
Is the book being referenced a later edition then the one listed on Amazon.com? If so, then what edition is it? And on a similar note, what page(s) did the quote being cited come from?
Anyways, here is the markup of the first citation
:
--TheFarix (Talk) 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put the ref in, but the ref is definitely in the 1st edition (1998, which I own), and I don't know about the second edition. It sounds like they referenced a later printing of the 1st edition. (Mine was 4th printing, 2000.) Otherwise the ISBN would be different. The pages were 170-171 (It should be the same in all printings of the 1st edition). -HKMARKS 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, since the same pages is been referenced twice, I'll just cut the quotes and merge the two citations into one citation. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. I think I'll take a bit of each and make inline quotes; not all of it is relevant anyway. -HKMARKS 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be best for that particluar reference, since you are using it twice. Generally, I dislike long quotes in the Reference section. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished wikifying all of the citation. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job :) -HKMARKS 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikifying reference 

message: Talking with my partner, we realised that the end of eva commentary contains the answers to a number of the {fact}ed points. In particular, "Some felt it was Anno's "revenge" for fan attacks against the original endingcitation needed." is explained. I've yet to get to understand the {cite} template, but more importantly, can we actually use this as a souce? The commentary is by the english production crew and experts not related to the series, but I'm worried that this may still count as primary rather than a secondary source. Thoughts? LinaMishima 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It very depends on what is being cited.  works well for the manga,  is used for web publications,  is used for citing a specific episode, or  for DVD extras and probably the commentary track,  is used to cite a magazine, and  is to cite a press release. You can also use one of the other citation templates found at :Category:Citation templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Couldn't we simply use the images of hate mail (directed against Anno; weren't there death threats as well?) in the movies as a source for those fan attacks? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there were 3 people talking. The translator and Eng. director are primary sources when they say things like "We changed children to child because it sounded weird." The analysis otherwise (mostly by person #3) is a secondary source; it's based on research into the show and its background. They had no part in making the series, only in adapting it for US audiences. The show itself (dialogue, images on screen) is a primary source, as well as interviews or statements by creators. (See "cite video" here.) -HKMARKS 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, don't worry about using primary sources -- encyclopedias are both secondary and tertiary -- just try not to bring your own interpretations into it. -HKMARKS 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everyone! Now I'd better look up how to properly use the cite video template. Oh, and Yey for Amanda Winn Lee (even if the IMDB don't credit her properly for her work in producing the dubbed end of eva). LinaMishima 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I put a reference to this in the character section, but I was unable to fill in all the fields. (Yay rentals.) -HKMARKS 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of eva commentary 

message: Yo, I got rid of the Fan websites sub-section of the External links section... however I didn't know which one to choose (wikipedia guidelines say pick one) so I put three into the misc section of the external links. Can someone go into them and pick one out? Thanks. --Miss Ethereal 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eva Otaku and Eva Monkey seem to both have a lot of transcriptions and translations of official source material (like brochures, the Red Cross Book, scripts, DVD covers, etc.). The Fan-Geek Commentary Project, I didn't have time to look at, but it seems to be what it says, commentary on scenes. -HKMARKS 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Eva commentary, whilst the commentaries might be good, appears to be offering torrents of the the dvds - and we're not supposed to link to such content. I wasn't too impressed by Eva Otaku, but Eva Monkey actually looks good and well-updated. LinaMishima 12:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you for your help, I've removed the other two fansites and left Eva Monkey on. --Miss Ethereal 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Eva has a fair few soundtracks availible for it, "OST", "Additions", "Refrain", "Death and Rebirth", "End of Eva" and "Vox". The last one of these deserves special mention, as it's not just a collection of backing music. Infact, I don't know how to describe it - rap interpretation of scenes using the tracks? LinaMishima 12:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, looks like it's on the list of other media associated article LinaMishima 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtracks - specifically Vox 

message: I don't think List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics is useful any longer. I'd like to change it to a cast and crew list. All other topics are in the navbox. --HKMARKS 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics]] 

message: If something lacks citations, rather than just deleting it, please add a  (for uncited) or  (for not very good source) or  (for unsourced quote) or  (for a dubious source). -HKMARKS 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've when through and marked a lot of statements that I think needs a reference cited. Also, the entire section on influences did not have a single reference to back up any claim made in that section. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the current citations mentioned the Oshii/Miyazaki/etc thing. I forget which one. Whoever wrote it just had their reference as an external link. -HKMARKS 01:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: requesting citations

message: The article says that SEELE as well as Gendo Ikari were interested in bringing about the Instrumentality project, but it also says that they both opposed each other at the core of their plans. I don't understand. --Anon.
:As best I understand it, it was a matter of intentions; SEELE wanted to evolve into the next, more superior form of life, without AT fields hurting people, and Gendo just wanted his wife back from the Eva. --maru (talk) contribs 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: "2000天鹰战士 (literally 2000 Aquila Fighter)" - Was that an official translation? Aquila isn't really an English word; 天鹰 translates to "heaven/sky hawk" or less literally "Eagle." -HKMARKS 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese version - 2000 Aquila Fighter? 

message: The article relating to the Arthur C Clarke Novel Childhood%27s End makes reference to Neon Genesis, stating that Anno admits he was directly influenced by the novel. Furthermore, it maintains that Xenogears was directly influenced by the same source material, a point which may sort out the influence section. Could somebody sort this out?
Also, Neon Genesis has been prominently featured not only in Takashi Murakami "Little Boy" exhibit, but in the art book Little Boy; The Art of Japan's Exploding Subculture. The cover itself features the image of Shinji flying through space. Does it deserve a mention here?
-- Amishexmachina 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Childhood's End, that sounds plausible, but it shouldn't be included until we find out where Anno said that. Re: Little Boy-- I see no reason why not. -HKMARKS 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added Childhood's End, it was mentioned in one of the refs we already have. -HKMARKS 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The article needs more mention to "Little Boy", or at least better redaction. --Erisie 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood's End and Little Boy 

message: Yeah, I know I can be an a******. And yeah, I know my oppinion is on the far... EOE side of things, but I still think that what was there. I agree that a colab should be done, and this is why I have asked all of my Eva friends, as well as places where I hang out to fix my chickenscratch. I hope I haven't caused too much of an uproar. I am quite clearly not Wiki material. Anyway, if you can work with me on this, I'd appreciate it. Sorry for being the a** that I am bound to be, and I hope I did this thing right...  — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarage (talk • contribs) .
:I decided to edit your post. I consider civility means to both be civil with others, and with yourself. Everyone makes mistakes, we are all human. Learning from them is what makes us different from most of the animals. Just keep it up, edit and discuss, but always with a cool head. -- ReyBrujo 06:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other editors who worked on this article while it was AMCOTW is going to let unverified POV original research to be reincluded back into the article. There are enough unsourced statements in the article as it is — which needs to be dealt with one way or the other. The last thing we need is a new editor to insist that we include unverified POV original research, even though it is against the three principles of Wikipedia. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citation and colaborative efforts are required. Trust me, I know. 

message: Should we add an Eva-R article because I know that Spanish Wikipedia has an article.65.49.214.73 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's Eva-R? --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eva-R 

message: Many of the "citation needed" links in the article refer to the series itself. For example, when saying that Ikari is machiavellian, do you really need to cite a source that says this? It is apparent from seeing the series. You might consider adding the series as a reference in the article, and listing which episode that was taken from, but it's kind of awkward and self-referential. I just think that  templates are used in places here where it's not necessary. Perhaps from somebody who had not seen the series, it might be important to add a source for some of the comments in the article, but it's not something you can directly cite any more than you can cite something that says that Big Bird is yellow and Ernie's face is oblong. It's self-evident. 140.90.208.67 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two kinds of citations: primary (from the book or series themselves) and external from the anime itself (books about the series written by analysts, comments by the director, etc). See here for some more information. If someone added the tags, it is because he does not know from where the statement came, and it is best to cite it instead of deleting them, otherwise we are failing at what we are supposed to do: inform the user. -- ReyBrujo 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we make a citation about a dialogue line in an episode ? Do we have to make a reference to the episode/DVD and then quote the line ? Folken de Fanel 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing quite so complicated. You can say, for instance, "In episode 14, Ritsuko called Gendo machiavellian" (don't quote ME on that, I just made that up). You don't have to go to elaborate details; different releases have different episodes, some people saw it on TV... but the episode numbers are all the same. -HKMarks 13:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed links 

message: I was thinking that there should be a separate trivia section with more interesting facts from the show. Like the reference to DHL courier in the episode where Asuka moves in or the name of the battleships are based on works of Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.194.166 (talk • contribs) 
:A few things to consider before doing so:
:*Before adding trivia, make sure it's in the right place. For example if it's trivia about Asuka, put it in the Asuka Langley Soryu article.
:*Make sure it's actually interesting. A real-life courier delivering Asuka's stuff? Not interesting.
:*Make sure it's notable.
:*Make sure it's verifiable -- there has to be a source, especially if you're saying what something means or refers to.
:-HKMarks 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting facts 

message: Well, after a month or so of removing speculation, it's creeping back in. So.
# We need sources for the arguments on what End of Evangelion meant. They exist, I'm sure. Go find 'em, someone, please. One source for "it's two perspectives on the same story" and one for "Two totally different stories." Oh, and one for "Anno thirsted for revenge on the fans," while we're at it.
# Whoever added the  tag, please be more specific.
# A good deal of the symbolism discussion should be moved to other pages.
# The philosophy section is excessively long and some of it violates WP:NOR.
-HKMarks 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: I'm sorry, but the entire Philosophy section needs to be removed/replaced with something sensible. As it is, it reads like a freshman philosophy paper which tried to vaguely connect quotes in the show to various philosophers. This is NOT the place for making speculation and theories about the existential literary background of the show (since it's far more inane than that).
Example: "Søren Kierkegaard criticized Hegel's theory, not only because it was arrogant for a mere human to claim such a unity, but also because such a system negates the importance of the individual in favor of the whole unity. He writes:"
How on earth is a lecture existential debate from the 19th century remotely relevant here?
SpeedyMuffin 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kierkegaard is vaguely relevant because an episode was named after a book he wrote, but I strongly agree, the section is too long and only of very limited relevance. --HKMarks 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevance is that the philosophy explains what is going on. Many people are confused by what happens in the instrumentality project. If anyone is familiar with Sartre and Kiekegaard, the allusions made in the series are unmistakable, and if one is familiar with their relationship to Hegelian philosophy and the contrasting tenets, the instrumentality project makes a lot of sense. I majored in philosophy and I loved Eva, but I didnt want to present orginal research, so I tried to simply show what the facts and context of the philosophy pieced next to an example in the series. The main thing that prompted me to mention anything here was the references made in the Psychology section to Freud, whose psychoanalytic vocabulary was extensively used by Sartre as well, although Sartre had a different opinion of the human condition. I figured that was relevant, given that the reference used to explain the Oedipal complex is more Lacanian than Freudian. Given the nature of the show, who is to say which sort of psychotherapy Anno was referencing since existentialism and psychoanalysis are both incorporated in the plot? Like I said before, if you never cared for philosophy, fine, but it is still relevant imo. I really dont have much time to contribute much more, so whatever you end up doing are your choices. I had said I was willing to collaborate, but I dont see how consensus is possible when the only interaction are deletions and faceless criticism after the fact.StaticAge 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that, ideally, Wikipedia should not have any kind of theoretical or speculative content in the articles. With NGE, this is really unavoidable since so much of the show's content is up to the individual to determine its meaning, but at the same time any kind of material that tries to draw a conclusion or make a connection about the content of the show that is unreferenced by something in print that's directly related to the show technically falls under the "no original research" clause and is therefore inappropriate for inclusion. If you can dredge up something in print that makes definite connections between the psychoanalytical theories and the show's content, and include quotes and references, more power to you. Without that, you're likely to get shot down. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really trying to be sensitive to NOR, but I understand. I do want to clarify what I have been saying. In looking back on my posts I think I may be taken wrong. I have two points: First, the series is pregnant with existentialism, especially that of the Sartrean variety. Hegel is related to that aspect, in particular, to understanding the instrumentality project. And I think someone who looks up Eva may have read a review that talks about "existential themes" etc and may want to know why someone would say that. My second point is somewhat minor I suppose, but simply that Sartre put a twist on psychoanalysis that is well known and practiced which contradicts some of Frued's theory in a way that may be relevant to some of the portayals in the show.StaticAge 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: When an episode is named after Søren Kierkegaard’s "The Sickness Unto Death" it is "inane" not to present philosophic information. We can maintain NOR by only presenting relevant philosophic information as possible interpretive aids and not as THE correct interpretation. I have lectured on this series, and it is of utmost importance to clear the fog of obscurity from these concepts. This series often leaves those viewing it entirely befuddled. One need not explicitly spell out the “correct” interpretation only to present base elements that can lead the viewer to form a cohesive personal interpretation. This element of a personal interpretation of experience is, after all, a central tenant of existentialist philosophy.--Matt 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inane Philosophy Section 

message: Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume II, was not an easy text to acquire. If anyone wishes to use this text feel free to do so.
One cold winter’s day, a number of hedgehogs huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another. Thus the need for society which springs from the emptiness and monotony of men’s lives, drives them together; but their many unpleasant and repulsive qualities and insufferable drawback once more drive them apart. The mean distance which they finally discover, and which enables them to endure being together, is politeness and good manners. Who ever does not keep to this, is told in England to ‘keep his distance’. By virtue thereof, it is true that the need for mutual warmth will only be imperfectly satisfied, but, on the other hand, the prick of the quills will not be felt. Yet whoever has a great deal of internal warmth of his own will prefer to keep away from society in order to avoid giving or receiving trouble and annoyance.
~Arthur Schopenhauer - Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume II, Chapter XXXI, Section 396--Matt 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Schopenhauer's [[Hedgehog's dilemma]] 

message: The 4 new movies appear to cover the entire TV series plus the movies... but taken on a different slant (such as like the manga did)... 70.51.8.35 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evangelion Shin Gekijou Ban]] ([[Rebuild of Evangelion]]) 

message: :"Anno stated before production that he did not know how the show would end, nor what would become of the characters."
¿Where did you get that? ¡The ending is in the opening sequence! 200.45.167.8 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never the less, that is what he wrote before the series was approved. I do not know how you are interpreting the opening, but I can say for myself I never noticed it. --Gwern (contribs) 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't see the ending anywhere in the opening sequence. Besides, we have several interviews and documents proving that the storyline has been constantly and heavily modified throughout the making of the show, we know at least 3 different ways the show could have ended but were not chosen for various reasons. So the statement in the article is true (moreover it's documented) so stop saying nonsense...Folken de Fanel 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Some scenes that ended up in the ending may have been used in the opening sequence, but they were probably worked in there either to save money on further animation, or to try to incorporate the scenes already used in the opening. In short, the ending itself isn't in the opening sequence, but scenes that ended up being used in the ending are, though admittedly it COULD have been interpreted otherwise quite easily, since some of the scenes could well be similar (though I haven't seen the opening sequence or the ending in quite some time so I can't be sure what is or is not included in either anymore). Does that answer your question? Nique1287 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending in opening sequence 

message: I can see from reading through this page and the archive that the Plot section is widely debated, and there are complaints about the length of the article. I propose that we move the Plot to its own page, and just provide a link to that in the main article with a Main tag. Then there's plenty of room for plot expansion (without going into speculation or opinion, of course) without interfering with the length of this article. Many anime on Wikipedia, even some with much less convoluted and detailed plots than Evangelion, have a separate page for their Plots. Giving it its own page would save trouble and allow for a less confusing outline of the plot without making the main article unreasonably large. Any other thoughts? --Nique1287 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worry that such a page would be vulnerable to deletion or disembowelment, but it seems more satisfactory than the current situation. --Gwern (contribs) 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be no more so than any other Plot page, even considering the popularity of the series and the number of people who would vandalize and/or discredit it, and if it were fleshed out sufficiently (and according to wiki guidelines) it could easily eliminate some of the length problem on this page, and any complaints that it is confusing or leaves certain integral elements out without being subject to deletion. It could include more detailed plot summary without interfering, as it were. Nique1287 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since there were no objections, I've moved the plot to its own page, Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion. Feel free to expand, change, etc. as it's VERY imperfect as an independent article. :) Nique1287 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your opinion. The plot summary is very badly written. I propose correction in its own article, AND THEN MOVING IT BACK to the main article. Erisie 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot on its own page 

message: That section is too long and poorly written. I recommend some editing on the section, and the core moving it to its own sub-article. That would also leave some space to return "Plot Summary" to the main article. --Erisie 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Plot section took up too much space, and as I said when I recommended it, many other series with less complicated plots have their own separate Plot page, so I don't agree that it should be moved back to the main page, especially since it's a VERY condensed version of the plot and Neon Genesis Evangelion is a very complex anime, so the plot should be expanded upon and that can only happen on its own article. However, I do agree that Fiction and Philosophy should be moved to its own article since it is unreasonably long to keep on the main article, although I don't think we need to keep even a short summary here, just a Main syntax link to the article once it's created. Nique1287 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation: Move "Fiction and Philosophy" to its own article 

message: I agree that User:EvaXephon has been mostly civil, and has been forthcoming in resolving a few issues. Now, there are valid criticisms of his site, and I would like to accept the offer to provide detailed feedback (the most important thing he can do is to mark all the screenshots with episode and time stamps), but I think that further discussion about the details should be kept on his user talk page.
This page is to be used for discussing the Wikipedia article itself, so I'd like to get back to that, and only discuss the site as it pertains to the article. I think the site fails WP:EL, so I guess I disagree with Terryeo here. WP:NPOV is inseparably bound to WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR. The correct way to include comparison information is to use actual reviewers as well as the shows' creators.
The RahXephon article includes a large (perhaps too large) section where reviewers compare shows with each other. For the Neon Genesis Evangelion article, however, a few sentences about RahXephon should suffice since it's not about comparing the shows accross the board but rather to note influences.--GunnarRene 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible solution