Talk:Misato Katsuragi

message: In NGE her promotion to Major was well established.  
However, I don't recall in 2.22 there ever being a promotion.  It is very common for Lieutenant Colonels to be addressed as Colonel, so when Akagi calls her Colonel Katsuragi, I don't think that is grounds for assuming a promotion has taken place.  If anyone has any better information, please say so, or I'm going to change this line.
thryllkill (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Misato Katsuragi. 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/20070819093918/http://www.evacommentary.org/appendix/character-names.html to http://www.evacommentary.org/appendix/character-names.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) 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I saw what you did. How many times am I gonna have to explain to you over and over again? Misato and Kaji never rekindled any romantic relationship in 2.0. Kaij is confirmed dead in 3.0 and is believed to have died shortly after Third Impact. And he is not set to return in the final film 3.0-1.0. So please leave this alone. You don’t get to dictate the facts. SG1994! (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you were edit warring, which is forbidden by policy. Also, no one owns the article. We may need a consensus among other editors on whether to include the relevant information. I've already asked at WT:ANIME to get further input. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: If the film does show something happening, then the description should reflect what is in the film itself. Anything beyond what is shown in the film would require secondary sources, since we don't presume. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: FYI, I've asked , ,  and , who are uninvolved third-parties, for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: They haven't said anything yet. Still, since two editors have already challenged your edits, the proper way to resolve it is to discuss on the talk page as per WP:BRD, not revert again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Still, we need a reliable source to confirm that Kaji's not in 3.0+1.0 as well as his relationship with Misato in Rebuild. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. As a fan, I tend to agree with SG assertion, but, as a Wikipedian, I want to found a reliable source. I want to search on Evangelion Chronicle. Give me just a day and I'll let you know.--User:TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry, where were the voice actors listed? Why would they release such a list before release? You know, people used to speculate that Toji died and yet we see him in the height chart "leaks" too. Because it's a "leak" (though it was probably intentional...) it might not be considered wiki-worthy, sure, but nonetheless it goes to show how just because a character doesn't show up in the 3rd movie, doesn't mean he won't show up in the 4th. We never get hard confirmation of anything, 3.0's whole deal is that it's a very opaque movie, by design. FelipeFritschF (talk)
The fact they didn’t even try to rekindle anything in 2.0 nor made any hints towards it, clearly makes that proof right there. And the fact is never stated or referenced in 3.0, I doubt they ever did. Plus 3.0+1.0’s voice cast doesn’t mention his voice actor or character listed. So it’s obvious he isn’t going to be in it.  SG1994! (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Unless there are reliable, third-party sources discussing this, it's original research. It may be 100% true, but we need sources here on Wikipedia. Anyone who edit wars over this (or anything else) after the "06:53, 5 February 2021‎" edit will be blocked. This is your only warning. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not even that. We get Asuka, Rei, Shinji, Toji, Hikari and Kensuke. No Misato, no Ritsuko, no Hyugga, no Aoba etc. Yet they're all in the trailers. I assume the idea with that "leak" was getting people's attention by hinting at their return. This doesn't cover Kaji at all. Similarly, I've seen a supposed list of a VA being cast for both Kaji and Kyoko - obviously not gonna quote it here because it can't be verified. You could also argue that Kaji is coming back because he's in the 3.0 previews. There is no official source saying he's dead or alive - just like there weren't for Toji et al. Either way, the height chart doesn't disprove it either. FelipeFritschF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  Can you please point out what lists exactly you are referring to? Because it doesn't seem to me that there any official voice actor listings yet. Sure, plenty of sites will speculate on it... and guess what, they're not listing Toji et al either, because the Khara leaks are not widely known. Plus, the forum source is just a translation of the Khara tweet, so I'm not sure why you're insisting on it, unless you want to dispute the translations of the names or something. FelipeFritschF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  Evageeks isn't the source, it just made a translation. The source is a tweet from Khara's account. It was deleted after a few hours, which is why it's technically considered a link - officially they'd say it was unintended, but it'd be a typical marketing technique to let a "fake" leak happen. Either way, although the original image and the translated one have been saved by people, the original tweet was unfortunately not archived. It's not directly relevant to this point however, I was merely illustrating my point about making assumptions based on 3.0 alone that might not hold up because the movies are simply not complee yet. But neither are there any official sources denying it, so, again, we can't make assumptions. FelipeFritschF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  It's deliberately left open. I was opposed because there was simply no way to tell. There's a 14 year timeskip and they deliberately tease the audience over it only to leave things hanging in the next movie. FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

text: That's really not a very good reason to assume he won't be in the film, so no. This is definitely OR and does not belong on Wikipedia without proper tertiary sourcing. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: "Pretty sure that’s what Anno intended for this one" WP:OR. The film doesn't work as a source, because it's what we call primary sourcing, and in this case doesn't work beyond perhaps actually claiming that he was or was not in the film using that very film itself; in this instance, you can't claim either using primary sourcing, because 3.0+1.0 has not been released, and therefore cannot be used as a source. No other film can be used as a source for the supposed voice actors of this film, either, otherwise it's no longer primary sourcing and is something completely irrelevant. So, primary sourcing is absolutely out of the question right now. Your reasoning is also founded upon... thematic/character analysis? Which, again, is WP:OR, and does not support the claim using third-party sources. So, unfortunately no, axiomatic evidence has not been provided. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: This has nothing to do with making a compelling argument. You don't have sources, and it's as simple as that. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: You're repeating the same thing and it's still not a source. Again, WP:OR. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not making an argument, I'm saying you have no sources; and refrain from name calling. Whether or not 2.0 shows any possibility of anything is irrelevant to the subject, tou're still purporting original research, and that has no place on Wiki. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: It's irrelevant because saying stuff about "they didn't rekindle the relationship in 2.0" doesn't prove anything about the characters in 3.0+1.0; it is OR, what is it that has you perplexed on the understanding of OR? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: No one is wasting their time here. Most Wikipedians who have replied to this topic seem to be in partial or full agreement with the statements I've made. Now, this isn't indicative of who is right or who is wrong, but considering that most of them have brought up the issue of original research, then we can infer that it is a relevant policy issue your argument is facing. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: That's not how that works. We can use the films as sources, but only for objective content. If Asuka were to, in the film or series, say Misato was her sister, or a sister-like figure to her, then that is primary sourcing and therefore objectively factual (well, even here such a claim might fall due to context). What you're saying, in this instance, is not comparable; it's subjective evidence that can't be used because it falls within the realm of OR. This is neither hypocritical nor argumentatively fallacious. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It falls within OR. You need verifiability. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: You're not making a lot of sense, here, but you're welcome to continue with your attempt, I suppose. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Nothing has been lost, it isn't a hypocritical statement, and the OR argument is still valid. Please try convincing the Wikipedians here with sources instead of reactions to their statements and usage of subjective evidences. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I've added my two cents, there's nothing for me to lose here. Also, just because one Wikipedian agrees doesn't make it correct, I even said this earlier. Also, talking all this nonsense about "facts" and "exposing" and "hypocrisy" and "denial" and all that is worthless ad hominem speak that has no place in any conversation. So, I'd suggest you stop making such reaction-based statements, as they really don't add anything to this conversation and, really, deter from your own statements. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Invalidating other's ideas because of silly claims of hypocrisy doesn't look too well for anyone. We could keep going forever about how nonsensical this is, but considering this should stay on topic I believe we should both wait for other opinions to be posted regarding the topic so that, eventually, a decision is made.   Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: "Gosh don’t you have something better to do than argue with me?" Same to you. I'm strongly suggesting you cease attempting to incite further non-relevant discussion on this matter. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misato on Rebuild. 

message: Given that we as Wikipedians must refrain from making assumptions about Misato and Kaji's relationships in Rebuild as per WP:OR, we may still need a reliable source to confirm it. Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's deliberately left open. I was opposed because there was simply no way to tell. There's a 14 year timeskip and they deliberately tease the audience over it only to leave things hanging in the next movie. FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

text: That's really not a very good reason to assume he won't be in the film, so no. This is definitely OR and does not belong on Wikipedia without proper tertiary sourcing. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: "Pretty sure that’s what Anno intended for this one" WP:OR. The film doesn't work as a source, because it's what we call primary sourcing, and in this case doesn't work beyond perhaps actually claiming that he was or was not in the film using that very film itself; in this instance, you can't claim either using primary sourcing, because 3.0+1.0 has not been released, and therefore cannot be used as a source. No other film can be used as a source for the supposed voice actors of this film, either, otherwise it's no longer primary sourcing and is something completely irrelevant. So, primary sourcing is absolutely out of the question right now. Your reasoning is also founded upon... thematic/character analysis? Which, again, is WP:OR, and does not support the claim using third-party sources. So, unfortunately no, axiomatic evidence has not been provided. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: This has nothing to do with making a compelling argument. You don't have sources, and it's as simple as that. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: You're repeating the same thing and it's still not a source. Again, WP:OR. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not making an argument, I'm saying you have no sources; and refrain from name calling. Whether or not 2.0 shows any possibility of anything is irrelevant to the subject, tou're still purporting original research, and that has no place on Wiki. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: It's irrelevant because saying stuff about "they didn't rekindle the relationship in 2.0" doesn't prove anything about the characters in 3.0+1.0; it is OR, what is it that has you perplexed on the understanding of OR? Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: No one is wasting their time here. Most Wikipedians who have replied to this topic seem to be in partial or full agreement with the statements I've made. Now, this isn't indicative of who is right or who is wrong, but considering that most of them have brought up the issue of original research, then we can infer that it is a relevant policy issue your argument is facing. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: That's not how that works. We can use the films as sources, but only for objective content. If Asuka were to, in the film or series, say Misato was her sister, or a sister-like figure to her, then that is primary sourcing and therefore objectively factual (well, even here such a claim might fall due to context). What you're saying, in this instance, is not comparable; it's subjective evidence that can't be used because it falls within the realm of OR. This is neither hypocritical nor argumentatively fallacious. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It falls within OR. You need verifiability. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: You're not making a lot of sense, here, but you're welcome to continue with your attempt, I suppose. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Nothing has been lost, it isn't a hypocritical statement, and the OR argument is still valid. Please try convincing the Wikipedians here with sources instead of reactions to their statements and usage of subjective evidences. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I've added my two cents, there's nothing for me to lose here. Also, just because one Wikipedian agrees doesn't make it correct, I even said this earlier. Also, talking all this nonsense about "facts" and "exposing" and "hypocrisy" and "denial" and all that is worthless ad hominem speak that has no place in any conversation. So, I'd suggest you stop making such reaction-based statements, as they really don't add anything to this conversation and, really, deter from your own statements. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Invalidating other's ideas because of silly claims of hypocrisy doesn't look too well for anyone. We could keep going forever about how nonsensical this is, but considering this should stay on topic I believe we should both wait for other opinions to be posted regarding the topic so that, eventually, a decision is made.   Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text: "Gosh don’t you have something better to do than argue with me?" Same to you. I'm strongly suggesting you cease attempting to incite further non-relevant discussion on this matter. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break