Talk:Gurren Lagann

message: None of the single characters currently establish notability and it seems unlikely that they will in the future. As this is a fairly small series, the characters really should be able to be covered here. The really minor characters can just be mentioned in the episode summaries. The list of mecha is just unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a merge of the branch articles, but not into the main article. Just add them all to List of Gurren Lagann characters and remove any really minor ones from the other two articles.--十八 00:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge the single characters into the appropriate lists, leave the lists themselves alone for people who know enough about the series to clean up. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists really can't be cleaned. Most of the characters are fairly one dimensional, so there won't be much after removing redundant plot summaries. It should be able to fit under a character section perfectly fine. TTN (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: They could be pretty handily cleaned up. The three character lists could put down to one, once redundant plot is removed. The mecha list can be trimmed and cleaned up into a passable article, it's already pretty valid spinout of the main article. I greatly oppose shoving all of this into a single section. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm not a regular editor of these articles I'm here to argue that the two main lists (of mecha and characters) should not be merged into the main article, since it has been already shown through community consensus that a character list is acceptable for most series that have usually around at least 12 episodes and/or a large number of characters, and that a mecha list is acceptable for series that feature mecha as a major plot point (which this series definately does). Compare to articles in other anime series, such as Code Geass, Gundam, Evangelion, etc. Lacking series notability is too ambiguous of a point to argue for deletion on its own. the_one092001 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to merge the pages, and most of the information is entirely relevent to the series itself. At the very least the character and mecha articles deserve to be here. Though the individual articles for, say, Simon or Nia are too small to be useful as is. They could be expanded if need be; the character and mecha lists are fully fleshed out and entirely functional however, the mecha article especially considering how important that aspect of the series is. And as mentioned, no one seems to mind the fact that EVA has two entire pages dedicated to the Angels and EVA Units individually, and another for technology. Comparatively the Gurren Lagann mecha page is far more succinct.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That would make the article too long! I don't think you understand how long it would take to explain everything. Also, this is a pretty normal practice for articles on anime and this series really isn't any 'smaller' than a lot of the  series we've done this with.. Repku (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Notability? Oppose. You should be more concerned with an unsourced neologism page like yandere, not a "hot" anime like Gurren-Lagann, friend. ;) 76.205.143.74 (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't just apply to AFD discussions, and "an unsourced neologism page" has no bearing on this discussion. If the individual character articles don't meet notability, they should be merged into List of Gurren Lagann characters (and the minor characters and mecha lists need to be merged too). The only way it would make the article too long is if they were merged with all the cruft left intact, something that definitely won't happen. Keep in mind, a merge decision would not be permanent, and any characters for whom significant real-world notability can be shown could be split back out at a later date. And as for "hot" anime series, have a look at the collection of character articles behind Naruto or Bleach. for Naruto, all unnoteworthy characters have long since been merged in with the character list, and with Bleach, the last few are getting the merge treatment. I Support this merge. —Dinoguy1000 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The Gundam articles are a long-acknowledged mess that have been getting cleaned up very very slowly due to a lack of manpower, though I once again point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your argument - the existence of low-quality, crappy articles with little or no potential for an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia is not justification for keeping or creating other low-quality, crappy articles with little potential. The mecha and minor character lists should be merged, since almost by definition, "minor character" = not notable, and all but, like, three (completely random number that I pulled out of nowhere) of the mecha in the series are utterly nonnotable, unimportant, throwaway mecha, and those few that are more important are better explained about in their operators' sections (e.g. Lagann is perfectly fine being talked about in Simon's section on the list). Allow me to stress once again, merges are not permanent - if, at a later date, you can demonstrate sufficient non-trivial, real-world coverage of some character or mecha in the series to the point that it passes WP:GNG, it can always be split back out into a separate article. BTW, lest I forget again, the antagonist list also needs to be merged. —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I could greatly expand the articles pertaining Simon, Nia, Lord Genome and Viral with information from the Gurren-Lagann production book, both Gurren-Lagann databooks, interviews with writer Kazuki Nakashima, director Hiroyuki Imaishi and character designer Atsushi Nishogori.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.153.108.62 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very welcome as production and (possibly) reception information, as long as you properly source all additions. However, these by themselves are not sufficient to establish individual notability, you still need to find and demonstrate a sufficient amount of nontrivial, reliable third-party coverage, e.g. in the mainstream media, or from industry experts. —Dinoguy1000 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the need for "third party industry experts" analysis since the Evangelion character articles, considered among the best in Wikipedia, are mostly a translation of the design process, character data and various thoughts from the staff itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.153.108.62 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's how it works on Wikipedia. A large collection of well-written, sourced and relevant information can't have its own article unless some editor on IGN says it looks shiny. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IGN is currently doing reviews of Gurren Lagann episodes, so a makeshift "Reception" section can be put together from disparate comments found in the reviews (the same thing has been done for the Naruto characters). That, along with the "information from the Gurren-Lagann production book, both Gurren-Lagann databooks, interviews" should be enough for the articles to stand on their own.--Nohansen (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I dunno, after I'm done trimming all the plot and cruft from the mecha article down to a concise list that only objectively talks about them and their roles in the series it should be fine as its own spin-out article. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems about right to me --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's, for the moment, assume everyone except the original proposer (TTN) agreed with that. Does it change the fact, that a merge into this page has been proposed? No, it does not. And the merge tag is doing nothing but advertise this discussion on the main page, where editors interested only in the main page, might see it (and perhaps agree with TTN). Removing the tag is denying him a way of gathering support. It's impolite, and since the tag isn't hurting anyone, unnecessary. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your comment, wouldn't it be proper, then, to leave the discussion tag up for ever, especially because this doesn't seem to be garnering any support? In what case would you be willing to remove the tag from the top of the page? DARTH PANDAduel 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this discussion gets closed or archived. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my question. What are you conditions for closing this discussion? DARTH PANDAduel 01:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus must be reached. ("No consensus" is no consensus.) If we don't reach a consensus, we continue discussion, until we do. The other possible outcome would be everyone losing interest in the discussion. Eventually it would get archived and the links in the merge tags would not lead to an active discussion. At that point, they'd be obsolete. Keep in mind, this isn't an AfD. There's no time limit. However long it may take to reach consensus, Wikipedia has all the time in the world. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to note, though, that we can reach consensus for a result not originally proposed - such as the movement to merge to the character list above. —Dinoguy1000 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the specific character articles meet the notability guidelines; all of them only rehash the plot and only Simon has any real-world coverage. I'd support merging all characters/character lists into one single list article. The list of mecha is too plot-oriented, non-notable and crufty, although a section on the titular Gurren Lagann and its "upgrades" might be deserving. --Pentasyllabic (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there really any point to having a character section at all if the entire cast is going to be condensed into a barebones list that offers no actual information at all? Seriously, why not just make the plot summary into a decent three paragraphs and add a list of voice actors to the bottom of the article for the same effect? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your definition of real information? The only things the character list can contain are general descriptions of the characters and descriptions of their roles in the plot. There is no point in giving much detail to the plot when we have a suitable episode list to take care of the plot. That leaves the general descriptions (which will be improved upon, I just threw it together quickly) that fit here fairly well. TTN (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I was under the assumption that the two sentence character descriptions in that draft were actually what you were shooting for, without any future expansion needed. Nevertheless, even a more well-written and summarized list of characters would most likely be broken out into its own list article eventually anyway just because of the size of this show's primary cast. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They can definitely be expanded to a certain point, though I'm certainly not thinking about large paragraphs or anything. The main details of the main characters should fit nicely as long as plot specific information is left out. The only reason a list would be needed is if we bother to include every minor character or if we include descriptions of their roles in the plot, which the episode list can cover. TTN (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I fail to see what the problem with the cast information is. Typically, articles on anime and manga only note members of the cast/production team that are notable - this usually boils down to directors and voice actors. Directors are noted in the infobox and prose on the main article, voice actors are noted in the descriptions of the characters they voiced. Thus, I see nothing wrong with TTN's treatment of that information. —Dinoguy1000 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Popularity or size of the franchise don't automatically make the characters notable. His assessment is correct. "None of the single characters currently establish notability". Or do you see any reliable independent sources? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: And FYI, this isn't an original video animation series - its initial release was a television broadcast. ;) —Dinoguy1000 19:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you going to make an actual argument for keeping them all separate, or are you sticking with WP:ILIKEIT? They all need to be merged because none of them demonstrates individual notability, as has been repeatedly pointed out above. The same thing happened with the various character articles for Naruto, Bleach, and Dragon Ball, in the face of much more opposition than is being shown here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think lists have ever had size limits, in the sense you seem to be trying to convey (although there are recommendations for splitting articles and lists larger than a certain size, for performance reasons). There's no reason to merge the character list itself back to this article, that's a valid split. As for the music, it's not "just for the hell of it", it's per the MoS and project consensus. If you've got a complaint, you need to take it up there or at WT:ANIME, not here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there, done that. All I ever get is Collectonian alone asserting nonsense at me. Since "consensus" has been established in the manual of style pages is there really a point to a discussion here? Save people the time and effort and just do it if you think it's right since no one will ever be able to say otherwise. That's what TTN does a lot and it works for him. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Collectonian is the only one who responds because she's the only one who feels like responding. If she wasn't backed by consensus, other project members would jump in and say so. And TTN has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past for simply merging character articles without discussing them first. The discussions are intennded to alert local editors and allow them time to respond and possibly prove that character x is, in fact, notable. Unfortunately, no one here seems interested in doing that, preferring instead to make absolute gems of arguments like "zomg dont kill my favrite article!!!!11". --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually just referring to merging the music section. The topic doesn't actually seem up for debate here, so having a discussion on it is kind of insulting and isn't anything other than an exercise in telling people they're wrong so you can cite this discussion later and say "Well, we had a discussion here and the consensus was obvious. You should've been there." And I'm pretty sure no one responds on the music issue because arguing with Collectonian over such a trivial matter is like using karate to put out a bonfire. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated that I'm not suggesting the entire music section be merged, just the OP/ED info. I have a feeling (completely unsubstantiated, of course) that Gurren Lagann actually has had a decent amount of music/audio media released for it - if this is the case, a substantial music section is possible even without including the OP/ED info. And you have yet to convince me on why OP/ED info *should* be in the main article, as opposed to the episode list, which seems the most obvious place to put it... but I suppose that's just me. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the show only has one OP and two EDs, so anyone coming to this article expects to find that single sentence worth of information somewhere readily available, like, right there in the Music section and not in a separate article entirely. It's just impractical. Compare this to One Piece which has like 50 pieces of various theme music, that's the kinda deal where it should be on the episode list because it makes more sense for that info to be there just because it's easier to categorize. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, then, I'd suggest asking about it at the project. Consensus can change, and if you specify exactly what you're wanting and exactly why you think it should be done, you may get somewhere (Collectonian can actually be quite reasonable if you properly explain yourself). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It definitely should be discussed; TTN has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past for simply merging without first discussing the merge. That said, I'd agree that there's really no reason this should have turned into the debacle it did, but some people seem to think that if Wikipedia doesn't have an article on something (or if that article gets deleted/redirected/merged), then we're saying the item isn't "worthy" or some such nonsense. In any case, no real reasons to prevent the merge (i.e. no evidence of notability) has been put forth for any of the articles proposed to be merged (except for the main character list), and it's not looking like that'll happen any time soon, so I'd say we can go ahead with the merge. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Look, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be merged (in fact, I would be willing to merge them myself). However, there is absolutely NO way that you can merge these into Gurren Lagann as this page is already convoluted enough. Similar to what was done to List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, the other lists and character articles should be merged into List of Gurren Lagann characters but not into this main article. That's why I removed the notice. DARTH PANDAduel 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's, for the moment, assume everyone except the original proposer (TTN) agreed with that. Does it change the fact, that a merge into this page has been proposed? No, it does not. And the merge tag is doing nothing but advertise this discussion on the main page, where editors interested only in the main page, might see it (and perhaps agree with TTN). Removing the tag is denying him a way of gathering support. It's impolite, and since the tag isn't hurting anyone, unnecessary. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your comment, wouldn't it be proper, then, to leave the discussion tag up for ever, especially because this doesn't seem to be garnering any support? In what case would you be willing to remove the tag from the top of the page? DARTH PANDAduel 00:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this discussion gets closed or archived. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my question. What are you conditions for closing this discussion? DARTH PANDAduel 01:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus must be reached. ("No consensus" is no consensus.) If we don't reach a consensus, we continue discussion, until we do. The other possible outcome would be everyone losing interest in the discussion. Eventually it would get archived and the links in the merge tags would not lead to an active discussion. At that point, they'd be obsolete. Keep in mind, this isn't an AfD. There's no time limit. However long it may take to reach consensus, Wikipedia has all the time in the world. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to note, though, that we can reach consensus for a result not originally proposed - such as the movement to merge to the character list above. —Dinoguy1000 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the specific character articles meet the notability guidelines; all of them only rehash the plot and only Simon has any real-world coverage. I'd support merging all characters/character lists into one single list article. The list of mecha is too plot-oriented, non-notable and crufty, although a section on the titular Gurren Lagann and its "upgrades" might be deserving. --Pentasyllabic (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there really any point to having a character section at all if the entire cast is going to be condensed into a barebones list that offers no actual information at all? Seriously, why not just make the plot summary into a decent three paragraphs and add a list of voice actors to the bottom of the article for the same effect? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your definition of real information? The only things the character list can contain are general descriptions of the characters and descriptions of their roles in the plot. There is no point in giving much detail to the plot when we have a suitable episode list to take care of the plot. That leaves the general descriptions (which will be improved upon, I just threw it together quickly) that fit here fairly well. TTN (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I was under the assumption that the two sentence character descriptions in that draft were actually what you were shooting for, without any future expansion needed. Nevertheless, even a more well-written and summarized list of characters would most likely be broken out into its own list article eventually anyway just because of the size of this show's primary cast. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They can definitely be expanded to a certain point, though I'm certainly not thinking about large paragraphs or anything. The main details of the main characters should fit nicely as long as plot specific information is left out. The only reason a list would be needed is if we bother to include every minor character or if we include descriptions of their roles in the plot, which the episode list can cover. TTN (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I fail to see what the problem with the cast information is. Typically, articles on anime and manga only note members of the cast/production team that are notable - this usually boils down to directors and voice actors. Directors are noted in the infobox and prose on the main article, voice actors are noted in the descriptions of the characters they voiced. Thus, I see nothing wrong with TTN's treatment of that information. —Dinoguy1000 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Popularity or size of the franchise don't automatically make the characters notable. His assessment is correct. "None of the single characters currently establish notability". Or do you see any reliable independent sources? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: And FYI, this isn't an original video animation series - its initial release was a television broadcast. ;) —Dinoguy1000 19:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you going to make an actual argument for keeping them all separate, or are you sticking with WP:ILIKEIT? They all need to be merged because none of them demonstrates individual notability, as has been repeatedly pointed out above. The same thing happened with the various character articles for Naruto, Bleach, and Dragon Ball, in the face of much more opposition than is being shown here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think lists have ever had size limits, in the sense you seem to be trying to convey (although there are recommendations for splitting articles and lists larger than a certain size, for performance reasons). There's no reason to merge the character list itself back to this article, that's a valid split. As for the music, it's not "just for the hell of it", it's per the MoS and project consensus. If you've got a complaint, you need to take it up there or at WT:ANIME, not here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there, done that. All I ever get is Collectonian alone asserting nonsense at me. Since "consensus" has been established in the manual of style pages is there really a point to a discussion here? Save people the time and effort and just do it if you think it's right since no one will ever be able to say otherwise. That's what TTN does a lot and it works for him. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Collectonian is the only one who responds because she's the only one who feels like responding. If she wasn't backed by consensus, other project members would jump in and say so. And TTN has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past for simply merging character articles without discussing them first. The discussions are intennded to alert local editors and allow them time to respond and possibly prove that character x is, in fact, notable. Unfortunately, no one here seems interested in doing that, preferring instead to make absolute gems of arguments like "zomg dont kill my favrite article!!!!11". --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually just referring to merging the music section. The topic doesn't actually seem up for debate here, so having a discussion on it is kind of insulting and isn't anything other than an exercise in telling people they're wrong so you can cite this discussion later and say "Well, we had a discussion here and the consensus was obvious. You should've been there." And I'm pretty sure no one responds on the music issue because arguing with Collectonian over such a trivial matter is like using karate to put out a bonfire. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated that I'm not suggesting the entire music section be merged, just the OP/ED info. I have a feeling (completely unsubstantiated, of course) that Gurren Lagann actually has had a decent amount of music/audio media released for it - if this is the case, a substantial music section is possible even without including the OP/ED info. And you have yet to convince me on why OP/ED info *should* be in the main article, as opposed to the episode list, which seems the most obvious place to put it... but I suppose that's just me. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the show only has one OP and two EDs, so anyone coming to this article expects to find that single sentence worth of information somewhere readily available, like, right there in the Music section and not in a separate article entirely. It's just impractical. Compare this to One Piece which has like 50 pieces of various theme music, that's the kinda deal where it should be on the episode list because it makes more sense for that info to be there just because it's easier to categorize. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, then, I'd suggest asking about it at the project. Consensus can change, and if you specify exactly what you're wanting and exactly why you think it should be done, you may get somewhere (Collectonian can actually be quite reasonable if you properly explain yourself). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It definitely should be discussed; TTN has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past for simply merging without first discussing the merge. That said, I'd agree that there's really no reason this should have turned into the debacle it did, but some people seem to think that if Wikipedia doesn't have an article on something (or if that article gets deleted/redirected/merged), then we're saying the item isn't "worthy" or some such nonsense. In any case, no real reasons to prevent the merge (i.e. no evidence of notability) has been put forth for any of the articles proposed to be merged (except for the main character list), and it's not looking like that'll happen any time soon, so I'd say we can go ahead with the merge. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagebreak

message: The last three episodes or so used a song with lyrics containing "Fight the power", which would suggest that it's some version of Fight the Power by Public Enemy. However, an anon comment on the talk page from October claims otherwise, and I don't think I've ever heard the actual song, so I can't confirm this. Does anyone know any details (and, more importantly, are there any sources)? —Dinoguy1000 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fight the Power" is part of the lyrics to a few songs from the anime but the one particularly found in the last episodes is "libera me from hell." It is in no way made by Public Enemy. You can easily hear the whole version of the song on youtube.99.153.4.44 (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the clarification... Needless to say, I really like the song. ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Libera me from hell" is the operetta remix of "Rap wa Kan no Tamashii da! Onore wo Shinjite Ten wo Yubi Sasu Dotou no Otoko. Kamina-sama no Theme wo Mimi no Ana Kappo Jitte yo~ Kukiki Yagare!!"203.206.49.161 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a scary-long title... —Dinoguy1000 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, gotta love Gurren Lagann and it's craziness. In case you're curious it's more of a speech than a song title, translating roughly to: "Rap is a Man's Soul! So Perk Up Your Earholes and Listen REAL Close to the Theme of Lord Kamina, the Man of Raging Billows Who Believes in Himself and Points to the Heavens!!" - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fight the Power]]? 

message: 天元 does not mean Heaven. 天 means Heaven! 天元 could be in reference to the Tengen (era), or 天眼 (Tengen/Tengan), the Buddhist Heavenly Eye... I haven't seen the show, so I don't really know what it's about, but could someone explain to me what the significance of 天元? It could also mean Origin of Heaven... moocowsruletalk to moo 07:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Characters (mostly Kamina) frequently talk about "piercing the heavens with your drill" for the entire series. Seems unlikely they'd be talking about piercing the Tengen era or Buddhist Heavenly Eye - watch any one episode and you can guarantee at least one character will point up. 93.96.183.33 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really a valid point. Tengen is used in the series's title; "busting through the heavens with your drill" always uses ten for "heaven", not tengen.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The intended meaning is clear from the final episode. 天元 refers to "Heaven(s) and Dimension(s)", since they basically just squeezed 天 and 次元 together. --Kajitani-Eizan (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "天元" 

message: I could find the lyrics, in English, to the High Voltage song underground(episode 1-16 ending, if i'm correct) ? I've been looking for these for a while, haven't been able to find them. 216.119.178.127 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know where... 

message: i thought the translation was "Dont believe in yourself, believe in me , that believes in you." but here it says different. instead, it looks something like this ""Simon, believe in yourself. Not in the Kamina that you believe in, and not in the Simon that I believe in either." notice how there is a only one quotation at the end. thats because there is no quotation at the end, only one in the beginningQueenofHearts (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation 

message: The word "Lagann" is translated to "Face", for example "Movie Version Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann: Face Chapter", which is wrong. La(螺) means "spiral" and Gann(巌) means "Rock" or "Steep". Maybe former translator mistook Lagann as 裸顔, a nude face. So I edited the relevant part in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.212.221.26 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanslation of "Lagann"

message: i know it must be annoying bring it up here, but it seems no one is listening. 
in the Simon section i feel we shoudl add a picture of him of the time skip.DeathBerry talk 17:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Simon 

message: the wikiquote is linking to the wrong page, and i don't know how to change it =p How to link it to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tengen_Toppa_Gurren_Lagann with the wikiquote logo still on? Arthur (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiquote 

message: I could swear that the official spelling in the anime is "Jeeha", but a screencap would be nice since another user pointed out that the spelling in the licensed manga is "Giha". Anyone? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The official manga translation is suspect to... sucking. Similar problems arose with Bandai's translation of the Eureka Seven manga, so I'd go with the anime spelling here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be far from the first to suck (name no names), but that's really not the point. The anime is the primary media here, so its spelling is what should be used (unless an article happens to focus specifically on the manga, like a list of chapters). This is why I asked. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you tell how a village is spelled from spoken words in Anime? Has the name ever been written out in it? --H Hog (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't from spoken words. However, I could swear that it is spelled out at some point (but now that I think about it, perhaps it is only in some promotional material...?). This is why I asked for a screencap above. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So wait... since when does "I could swear it was like that in the anime" take precedence over "I have scans of how it's written in the manga"? --H Hog (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the anime is the primary media (and in this case, the manga isn't even particularly important to the franchise, unlike the secondary media in a number of other franchises I can think of). However, as I also said above, I'm not sure if the "Jeeha" spelling actually comes from the anime, or from promotional materials, or from reviews/previews/plot summaries, or what. That's why I'm asking for screencaps. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeeha or Giha? 

message: we should replace logo with the DVD cover. I constantly see a the gurren lagann DVD commercial in syfy channel so the japanese one must be out by now. We should look for it and place it over the logo. NO one knows what the series is with just the logo. WP:BOOK actually supports it.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. i'd probably have done it already if fair-use rationales didn't scare me so much. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: well Template:infobox animanga actually encourages it aswell. so i'm looking, unfortunately i cannot find the Dvd cover so easily.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried Amazon.com? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace Logo 

message: Just like how the Eureka Seven film's title in English is not "Pocket Full of Rainbows", the English names for the Gurren Lagann films aren't "Crimson Lotus Chapter" and "Spiral Stone Chapter". The names for these films appear on materials released for the series (art books, CD covers, etc.), and it turns out the subtitle for the first film is "Childhood's End" and the subtitle for the second is "The Lights in the Sky are Stars". As examples: "Childhood's End" & "The Lights in the Sky are Stars".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film name translations 

message: I'm new to talking on artical talk pages, but I was wondering, what would it take to make this artical a featured artical? regards--Orangesodakid 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for an artical to achieve the artical status of a featured artical, it has to meet the featured artical criteria listed at Featured Artical Criteria. In order for this artical to be a featured artical, it needs lots of sourcing and a general overhaul. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It also needs to be written properly.  The writing in the plot and character synopses here is just horrendous.  A featured article is meant to showcase not only the topic, but the quality of the article. - 71.246.150.103 (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured artical question 

message: Movie Mania.com Movie ANN Movie ANN Shelf Life --KrebMarkt 06:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review(s) 

message: Since this seems to affect a distribution, I inserted it.  There's a discussion on Yahoo Answers, as well http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100711213507AAlwIrX but I can't find any new article about it. 67.180.92.188 (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 8 missing on Netflix 

message: There's tons of spoilers in this plot summary. Is there any spoiler tags? It's not that old of a series... 24.19.177.67 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You should check out Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Basically, Wikipedia doesn't care.--iGeMiNix 08:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gurren Lagann. 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/20070809005039/http://www.konami.jp/gurren-lagann/online/notice.html to http://www.konami.jp/gurren-lagann/online/notice.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824095744/http://www.gainax.co.jp/anime/gurren-lagann/index.html to http://www.gainax.co.jp/anime/gurren-lagann/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705035054/http://gurren-lagann.bandai-ent.com/ to http://gurren-lagann.bandai-ent.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080813183435/http://www.manga.com/titles/gurren-lagann to http://www.manga.com/titles/gurren-lagann
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) 08:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified