Talk:Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

message: In vol. 9 of the manga, when Armisael begins to infect the saw that Kaworu is using, he refers to the Angel as an "encroachment type".  Has this particular designation been used anywhere else in NGE-related materials? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have just been descriptive.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never mentioned in the show, the number of uses of the word type can be counted on...three or four hands and I checked each one, I'm assuming it's just a way of describing it's behaviour--Tyrfing 01:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Types" of Angels 

message: With regards to one of the edits located in the Tabris section, there was a mention about the AT Field of equal strength belonging to Rei. Since the AT Field is regarded as the 'light of the soul' wouldn't the AT Fields of these two actually be part of the souls existing within them and thus belong to Adam and Lilith respectively? (I was just going to put a shorter version this in the edit history, but I changed my mind and accidentally hit Enter so ignore that meaningless edit)
:I see what you’re saying, but it was Kaworu and Rei who used the fields and not the Angels so I think we should keep it as is.The Twilight Goddess 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other minor comment 

message: Personally, I don't understand why this sentence is in the article anyway (WP:Trivia), but regardless of that fact, kami (god) and kami (paper/hair) are pronounced differently in Japanese. "God" has the accent on the first syllable, while "paper" has the accent on the second syllable. While it might still seem like a good connection to make, as a native Japanese speaker, that's not a connection that I myself would ever have made, and without a (Japanese) source to back that up, I'd be hesistant about including it in the article. --Egocentrism04 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sentence shouldn't be there in the first place—it is the sort of speculation that belongs on an in-depth fanpage, not on Wikipedia.  Radioactive afikomen 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should not be there at all, I reverted it last time because it would make no sense to be there if only God was taken away. (why would it be there to tell others paper and hair are pronounced the same way?)  That sentence is just a pure speculation and Original research, I am happy that people agreed on taking it away. MythSearchertalk 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God" vs. "Paper" under Zeruel 

message: The origin of Adam and Lilith is explained, and the section on Adam states that the rest of the angels were descendant from Adam. But after the 2nd impact, Adam was reduced to an embryo form, and afterwards in SEELE's control and encased in bakelite (and then given to Gendo). Where were all of these descendants for the fifteen years between the 2nd Impact and Sachiel's attack on Tokyo-3?
Or, if that's never explained, at least, do we know when the Angels were separated from Adam? That is, did the 2nd Impact somehow create them all, or did they already exist before that?
:That's a major question that never got answered; at BEST, the running theory is that the "awakening" of Adam spread Angel-seeds about.  But that's just conjecture.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where were Angels #3 and on? 

message: The note mentioning how Kaworu appears earlier in the manga is unnecessary.  First off, the current synopsis of Tabris does not state at what point he arrived, it is general enough to apply to both the anime and the manga.  Secondly, it belongs in the Kaworu Nagisa article, as it deals with Kaworu, not Tabris.  (Strictly speaking, "Tabris" did not appear until he hijacked Unit-02.  Anything prior to that describes Kaworu.)  Radioactive afikomen 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Tabris

message: Can someone eliminate the redundant references?  I tried to, doing that thing that lets you cite the same source multiple times, and what kept happenning was a bunch of code appeared in the References section, with either part of the Adam article disappearing or part of the Lilim article, depending on how I tried to tweak things.  
By the way, how do you all like my rewrite of the main section?  (I'm so shameless, I know. ^_^)  Radioactive afikomen 05:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, I'd say you did a good job.  I might have some quibbles with wording, but that'd be about it.  If...and that's a big IF...I get time this weekend, I'll go through the article and work on the references; we've got company for the weekend so if no one else does it, it may be next week before I can get to it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the 'citation needed' things need to go. A lot of them are asking for citation on things that some charactrs just say almost in passing in the show, and unless you get a voice clip, may be hard to cite while still being fact (or at least an extremely widely accepted belief).--Amantetosca 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with citations

message: Aside from the unending job of reverting poorly conceived/executed edits, minor polishing, and long-term "eventuallies" (eventually, someone will fix the redundant references; eventually, someone will provide a source for the Angels' names, etc.), is this article finally finished?  Radioactive afikomen 06:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess at least we could remove the unref tag since there are plenty of reference in the article already, if anyone wants more ref, they should add them into the specific parts of the article. MythSearchertalk 08:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we done yet?

message: Regarding this topic:  One of the volumes of the NGE manga has Angel Kiss in the back.  Is this just the 3- or 4-panel strip, or is there more to it?  If there's more, is there a website somewhere that depicts it that can be linked?  I ask because what's depicted in the manga is nowhere close to erotic, despite what the note in the article says. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same question here, I know which one you mean, it is the knitting a scafe for Sachiel one, right? MythSearchertalk 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the one.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamshel and Angel Kiss 

message: Got a new referece site, added in ref, learnt how to use ref name :) MythSearchertalk 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's good but I don't know how it not being in English will affect stuff.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? I don't exactly understand what you are trying to say here.  A direct quote of Japanese official TV guide is not enough to affect what?  The verifiable page requires non-English sources to be listed with the original language for others to verify the translation, it should be good enough for simple names that everyone can copy and paste it in an auto-translator.  If you mean sources of what the name really means, I guess we could restructure the sentences to make it so that it is something like: XXiel, the Angel of YZ instead of the current name for Angel of YZ. MythSearchertalk 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I JUST FOUND IT FINALLY:  the name references (what they are the Angels of) are included in the info booklets that come with the Platinum Edition DVD's.  That's our source.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be the same as what I linked to yesterday. MythSearchertalk 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin 

message: I've removed the "too many non-free images" template, as the vast majority of images have been replaced by refs to sites w/images and information about the Angels.  As far as the remaining images go, I wouldn't mind seeing them stay, at least until they can be treated the same as the other pics. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I preferred it with the images in place, myself. Hellbus 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you're up against obsessive-compulsive image counters that can barely pass a Turing test. The solution would be to get a few images that show many Angels. Also, not all of us have flash, so perhaps there's a more suitable site to use - perhaps Gainax. --129.241.151.140 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I liked having the images. However, the Foundation's made it clear that such liberal use of non-free images isn't tolerated anymore.  That includes trying to splice multiple images together.  I used the ADV site link to replace the images because it's the best compromise between good pics and info about the Angels that I could find, not to mention that ADV is directly connected to the Evangelion franchise.  If someone can find a site that doesn't use Flash and has equally good images of the Angels, by all means use it as the ref instead of the ADV site...although I have to admit that I'm puzzled that people wouldn't have Flash on their computers. *shrug* Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two images per angel might have been a bit excessive, but having and image of each angel is within the policy - don't let anybody convince you otherwise. You're making an encyclopedia here, not a fan website. Please put back as many images as needed to identify the angels. --129.241.151.140 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's actually never been within policy, it's just that Wikipedia has not really sunk its collective teeth into enforcing the policy until recently.  See User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation for details, especially this section, which specifically addresses "list of.." articles, and by association any other article which could be considered a "list of..." article.  This article and Evangelion (mecha) definitely qualify, in theme if not in name. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that the link to the Evangelion website is no longer valid. It takes the user to a strange "under construction" website. I think it should be updated to the accurate website, so that the images of the angels can be viewed. Obliviblob 21:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I haven't removed them yet because I wanted to leave a visual reference to the information about their designs until some kind of outside reference to them relating to the series is found, as was done with the images of the Angels themselves...unless someone gets snippy about the # of non-free images, in which case they may have to be removed anyway.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I just feel it weird that we keep two ships images while non for Angel itself. L-Zwei 05:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a little strange, I agree.  They won't be there forever, I just haven't had a chance to do any digging on that particular issue, as I've been concentrating on trying to find visual references for the items in the glossary article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: They could be removed, provided that not-orphan tags are put on them. The picture of the ships on the map is text-linked from the articles on the two ships, and the picture of the ships in the water is text-linked from the talk page for USS Kentucky. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Hellbus 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Did we have to get rid of all of the images?  Admittedly, many images aren't fundamental to the readers' understanding of the Angels appearance.  Tabris already has his own picture in the Kaworu Nagisa article, Sandalphon is explicitly described as looking like Anomalocaris, Ramiel is just a big blue octahedron,  Armisael is a double-helixed torus, and Lilim are just human beings.  Iruel looks like a slime mold, so it isn't particularly photogenic anyways.  Many others can be adequately described with words.  But still, one or two pictures would be nice.  Specifically, I'm thinking of Sachiel, whose is appearance is both iconic enough to the series and also undescribably bizarre that not having a picture of it would arguably deal a significant disservice to the readers.  -- 22:09, 28 October 2007
The article needs atleast a few images, to show it's subject!   Doktor  Wilhelm  15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the article has survived without images for several months now. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the beginning of each Angel's section links to an image. Hellbus (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point in having to click two things in order to see an image, just to know what the heck something is going on about (it not in the begining)! Plus it is a usual part of all Wikipedia articles; to have atleast one image to show/describe the content of the article (the same goes for all articles without images)!   Doktor  Wilhelm  22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any images would by definition be fair use images, since no free version exists or could conceivably be created. There were originally images in the article, which were removed per discussion above. Linking to images is the best compromise. Hellbus (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I have noticed that you have started to address some of the issues to attain B-Class: May I suggest a few pointers:
:The lead should be about 3 paragraphs long, per WP:LEAD; for an example, refer to List of Naruto characters.
:A more accurate article name might be List of Neon Genesis Evangelion angels (Not sure though, but the article seems to follow a list format. FL status is also much easier to attain than FA status.)
:Please let me know if you have further questions. 
Regards, G.A.S  06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered yesterday if the article should be made into a list, as that's really what it is.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, this is a naming issue only. The formatting and content need not change. G.A.S  05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Are the "x no Tenshi" names really necessary? The only point I can see is as a pointless (and technically wrong, given that NGE uses 使途 not 天使 for angel) extra translation of the English translation of the Hebrew, and seeing as they're not used in the series I'm not sure it's relevant. 78.151.189.91 (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it is in the Japanese official TV series site. MythSearchertalk 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made-up Japanese names 

message: I have removed this line, since this notion was actually due to a mistranslation in end of evangelion:
 On the other hand, it has been revealed in both the series and the movies that Adam actually comes from Lilith, making her the "Mother of Angels".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratstail91 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: origin of the angels

message: As it stands, the Rebuild of Evangelion Angel section could honestly make an article all to itself, discussing first and foremost the properties of each Angel and noting any differences from the television series, plus notes on the remaining Angels. If a split is felt to be unwarranted, I still feel that the article might be improved by incorporating the Rebuild elements into the actual list of Angels or by being made into a seperate list. Legendary (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  split or change of formatting? 

message: i just removed some trivia and original research, it's mainly information saying stuff like "we don't know this", "it was never revealed" or "Although it is unclear" etc. I also removed some description that was unnecessary but maybe it was just badly worded so it might go back in. There is still some original research in the description, specifically on the translation of the name. such as saying something is appropriate due to angels once being messengers. it could be worded better. I will fix the angels and summarize the rebuild of evangelion section as well, or merge them together to the angel's section.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing trivia and Original Research

message: The various angelic names should not redirect to this page. Evangelion did not invent Armisael, for example, and the lack of a proper article on it does not make this it by default.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.197.210 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy redirects 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. 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/20070630193917/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/ to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630193917/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/ to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108164234/http://www.ocn.ne.jp/theater/flets/list/pickup/feat_eva/p04.html to http://www.ocn.ne.jp/theater/flets/list/pickup/feat_eva/p04.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. 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/20070816223043/http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_11.html to http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_11.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819121736/http://www.evacommentary.org/supplemental-images.html to http://www.evacommentary.org/supplemental-images.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816223623/http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_08.html to http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_08.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070920235557/http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_07.html to http://eva.yahoo.co.jp/kagi/machine/machine_07.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045304/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/package.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/package.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417022535/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/01.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/01.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417022633/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/02.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/02.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417024101/http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/nano.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/goods/angel_xx/nano.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: A template has recently been added that reports the article as excessively long and detailed. I ping the user in question; @JoelleJay. Thank you, in first place~ Hope you don't perceive this as an attack. I respectfully disagree; while it is true that normally an article over 9,000 words would have to be cut, here we are not talking about a long article for plot reasons - it isn't really even a plot - and exceptions are guaranteed, especially considering the fact that we are talking about an article about characters - even if not human - with many reliable sources and many parts about conception, reception, and so on. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We have multiple paragraphs of highly detailed backstory for each character, sourced largely to non-independent or primary sources (Kadokawa Shoten/Fujimi Shobo, people who were part of the production like Cannarsi, Evangelion Chronicle (which was supervised directly by Gainax), etc.). That is way too much material that hasn't been filtered through independent secondary analysis for a broad summary encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @JoelleJay In the case of an anime these types of sources are not primary AFAIK; the primary source is the anime only, or maybe interviews from people involved into it. The various encyclopedias and collections dedicated to the series are often independent sources; they are secondary, or maybe in some cases even tertiary encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. The perfect example is probably the most used source: Evangelion Chronicle.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

text: BTW. Cannarsi was not involved in the production - he just supervised the translation of the first Italian edition. Chronicle was supervised and licensed by Gainax, but this doesn't mean that it's primary.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary sources would include the refs to the episodes themselves. But the main issue is the lack of independence. Cannarsi should be treated the same re: independence as any actor or writer involved in NGE, as he was paid to work on the Italian version and therefore does not represent independent attention from the world at large. Evangelion Chronicle, by having a financial, legal, and/or supervisory relationship with Gainax, is also not independent. NPOV asks that all articles be based on independent sources, and RS goes even further in saying . There should therefore be far less detail cited to these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO context matters a lot. Here we are talking about a work of fiction and an article describing the characters that compose it: it is clear that most of the sources are the episodes, official guides, interviews with the staff. This has not been a problem in any way in all the years I have been on Wikipedia; Naruto Uzumaki, a FA, has at least half as many sources as this. Who else should talk about Sachiel's creation other than Asari himself?I would also add that different parts of the article have many authoritative and completely independent sources (In other media, Cultural references and interpretations, Cultural impact).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing that the article should be deleted, just that the extensive details should be cut down.Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The details provided seem more than pertinent and concise to me. Almost half the article, for example, talks about the creation of Angels, not Angels themselves, and obviously the sources must be primary: interviews with the creators and guides. Since many other sections and sources are clearly based on external and authoritative sources, the problem does not arise.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template