Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion/Archive 1

... The Alternate reality seen in Ep. 26? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twilight Goddess (talk • contribs)

What about it? –Pomte 00:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Several manga and games were set in that reality, so doesn’t that qualify it as a “major continuity”. Also what the policy on fan works, like RE-Take and Eva-R (if Re-Death merits a page those two certainly do IMO)The Twilight Goddess 01:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That alternate reality technically only exists as a psychological excursion taken by Shinji as part of his Instrumentality, its role in Evangelion canon is minor, at best. Also, it changes to fit the story needs of each person that creates a game and/or manga that is set there; trying to write a cohesive article or subsection about it would be difficult. As far as the other works go, I think that a mention in the NGE media article would be a good place for information about them, but I don't know if either is notable or sourced enough to justify more than a stub-sized article, if that much. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, although I would ague that if you look at it separate the AR becomes much more coherent.The Twilight Goddess 02:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it wouldn't be a bad idea to create a userbox for this work group. Anyone with skills care to take on this task? I'd do it, and will give it a shot if no one beats me to it, but it's really late and I'm really tired. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this together...opinions?

Here are some other possible wordings:

Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "we won't let the rewrite our scenario!" as 1-it's the phrase I keep using for WikiProjectEva 2-has the connotations of that we won't let people rewrite or destroy what we've begun :) --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, true. I'm good with any of them; my only concern with the "scenario" tag is that it's not immediately clear as to what the userbox is linking to. Maybe there could be two boxes, the one above and one that says "WP EVA" or something like that where the image would be with the "scenario" tag...we need more feedback. Also, how does the image look? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an idea for the image for the portal, but I don't know if it would fly - could we get Wikipe-tan's puzzle pieces changed to A10 clips? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. I've been kind of busy working on "Project E" for a while, so I'm sorry that my planned work revamping of all Eva articles is delayed once again.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lance should be bigger and the wrench smaller. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Wikipe-tan's creator to do up a version of her dressed as an Eva pilot. He said the image would have to be claimed as fair use since the plug suits are an intellectual property of Gainax, but I said that would be fine. Hopefully, he'll have it done in the next few days so it can be placed on the portal page. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem...fair use imagery can't be used symbolically for WikiProjects, so the plug suited Wikipe-tan is out, and there may be an issue with the image that I created for the userbox. I've messaged the admin who corresponded on the Wikipe-tan image, hopefully he'll get back with me soon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan's creator has agreed to do up an image of her holding a blank signboard which we can edit to include the title of the Project. As soon as the image is posted, I'll put the finishing touches on it and add it to the Portal page. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a similar fair use concern, I've asked an admin to delete the image that I created for the WikiProject userboxes. I'll replace the image with text; see above. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion has been nominated for deletion. 70.55.86.129 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the task of resizing the Eva-related images to comply better with Wikipedia's FU guidelines, I got to wondering - once I save the new versions of the pics, if I change the format (say, from JPG to PNG) or rename the pic, should the old pic be deleted from Wikipedia? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so if you are replacing the existing pic using the Upload a new version of this file feature as long as the replacement version has the same destination filename as the original that it's replacing. However, the source filename has to be different or it won't overwrite properly, or at least I've had problems when doing this because the images come out messed up. E.g., you want to replace "x.jpg" with a resized version; you rename the image you want to replace it with "x1.jpg" then replace it, but keep the destination filename as "x.jpg" so that it will overwrite this particular image. If you give the destination filename a different name, e.g. "x123.jpg", then it will be uploaded as an image in its own right. The problem with this is if that you are now using "x123.jpg", the original "x.jpg" becomes an orphaned image if no pages are linking to it. In this case, unless the orpahened image is linked to somewhere within 7 days, it gets deleted. For your purposes, this shouldn't be an issue, unless you are planning to upload completely different images from the ones already on there. Does that make sense? --BrokenSphere 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes enough sense. Thanks. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should do it. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 00:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty...I think I've got all the NGE-related images up to speed on fair use issues (size, Purposes, Resolution notes) and have added some un-linked images to the NGE image category. There are two or three episode articles that need an image for their infoboxes, and we desperately need an image of Kaworu from episode 24 that can be used for the character list article and for Kaworu's article as well as that episode. I'd do it, but I don't have a good DVD image capture program on my computer. Can someone take care of this? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can look, but what's wrong with the Sadamoto illustration? --BrokenSphere 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is that I haven't found an official Gainax- or Sadamoto-related source for the image, just a Spanish website that has the entire image. A screencap from the show is much more reliable, both for giving a source and a reasonably easy-to-describe-and-justify purpose of use for fair use purposes, and can fit the episode's article also since it doesn't have an image ATM. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Took some other screencaps after he manifests himself as an Angel, but the lighting's a little bright. --BrokenSphere 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really good. Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image Third Impact

In light of the massive push by Wikipedia's Foundation and admins to severely limit the number of non-free images that are used in the articlespace, I think it may be time to take a long hard look at the images that are being used in the Evangelion articles and try to come to a consensus about what images we should fight to preserve and what images can be removed without significantly harming the articles. I'm waiting on input from one or two admins who are heavily involved with image culling on possible image alternatives...as soon as I hear something from them, I'll post something here. Input from everyone who's signed on as a participant is greatly appreciated. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin and User:Rockstar915 aren't admins. Well Durin used to be one, but not anymore. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-so...eh, doesn't matter, since they're involved with the image culling they're as good as admins, especially Durin. Glad to see you stopped in, I was just about to ping your talk page about this. I've already contacted everyone else on the project's member list. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind all this fair use image pulling is outlined here. Articles that Durin has noted for review re. fair use image use are listed here. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got Willbyr's message so I figured I'd weigh in. Bear with me as I'm still a little new to Wikipedia. How many images are we using exactly under the fair use rationale? Maybe we could limit by using a standard set of images across all the articles. I haven't been through all the NGE articles in a bit but I had noticed at one point there were multiple images of Asuka floating around in the articles. Maybe we could create a set of images that has one standard low res image of each character that would work under the fair use rationale and then use these accross all the articles when an image of a character is necessary. We should try to limit each episode article to 1 image as well. With so many different NGE articles using a standard set of images I think would greatly decrease the number of images necessary to maintain them all. That's my 2 cents so far. I'll do some poking around in the articles and see if I can figure anything out. Elhector 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Neon Genesis Evangelion images]] lists all the images that are associated with the articles (or at least, the vast majority of them). I think that most of the episode articles only have one image in them, in the infoboxes. Likewise, there are only a few character articles that have more than one image in them, and in a few of them, specifically, Misato's and Rei's, I think that the multiple images can be justified. I like the idea of having one image that can be used in multiple areas; I've done this with a few of them already. Also, Durin said that there shouldn't be a problem with imbedded links to sites that feature descriptions of information along with images, so if we have to cull images from the articles, we can still provide the information that way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbyr (talk • contribs)

All images on the NGEvangelion main page are needed, with the exception of NGEscreenshot02.jpg which I feel isn't needed. . Most of the images in the character articles should stay except for the manga covers, Rei_in_episode_23.png in the Rei article, RitsukoReq.png in the Ritsuko article which are unnecessary.

In the Eva Units article, Eva-reject.jpg should go (the rest are important in that they illustrate the varying depictions used in the series and fulfill in showing the EVA rejects already), the Simulation Bodies image should go as well, and MP_Eva.jpg (The MP with wings is good enough to illustrate).

In the Angel article, Bardiel004.jpg, Matarael_eyes.jpg, NGE_Illinois_and_Kentucky.jpg, NGE_Iowas.png, Ramielrebuild.jpg, Shamshel.jpg, and Sachielrebuild.jpg should all go.

The End of Evangelion article looks good except for Johann_Sebastian_Bach.jpg...which I don't know why is being used there.

The Rebuild of Eva article has all necessary images. The NERV and SEELE logos illustrate the major shift in design for the new movies as well as the Unit 01 image...somewhat.

And as much as I like the individual articles for the episodes...they aren't needed and as it pains me to say it, should all be deleted. Fox816 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on the images later tonight when I get time. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Angel page, the images of the battleships under the Gaghiel heading should be removed. The image under the characters heading on the main page is not a screen capture. I have the same thing in an artbook, and I don't know if artbook scans are considered fair use. The Bach image in the EoE article is unnecessary. The glossary has several images of a lot of things, and I'm sure some could be pared down to a single image. The others seem fine, though. Xenofan 29A 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh...providential that my MySpace playlist kicks up "Cruel Angel's Thesis" as I work on this...anyway, I'm going to address this article by article per the layout of the NGE template, grouping some like articles together and ignoring articles w/no images. Here goes...

Hideaki Anno: Needs a free image of Anno; the God Warrior image can stand to be removed

Yoshiyuki Sadamoto: The current image should be replaced with a free image of Sadamoto

Gainax: The current image should be replaced ideally with a pic of the Gainax building

Neon Genesis Evangelion: I don't have a problem with any of the images; I think all of them can be justified...if any one image could be sacrificed, it would be the character shot, but that can be replaced with a link

Death and Rebirth: The current image is sufficient, but I wonder if it would be better to replace it with an image of the DVD cover.

End of Evangelion: I love the poster image in the infobox, but I wonder if it should be replaced with the cover of the DVD. I say cull the Lilith and Bach images; the rest are fine.

Revival of Evangelion: No problem with the image

Rebuild of Evangelion: The poster is sufficient; the NERV and SEELE images can be replaced with a link to the project's homepage since they're at the opening, and the image of Unit 01 really doesn't add much

Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga): No problems with the images, but it might not be a bad idea to combine the two manga covers into one image

Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days: The image in the infobox is sufficient, the rest can be culled

Shinji Ikari Raising Project: No problems with the images

List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion: I have removed all the images from the article. The characters who do not have their own articles have had references provided which feature their images, so this article's covered

Individual character articles: Of these, only Misato's and Rei's have multiple images that I think are worth preserving

Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary, Evangelion (mecha), and Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion): These are all going to eventually get the same "too many non-free images" treatment as the character list article got, so I think it will behoove us to do our best to replace the images with solid refs that include images, as I did in the character list article

The video game and song/album articles: An image in the infobox for each should be sufficient

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media: Only one image, and that one doesn't have to be there

Red Cross Book: One image...I still think this article should be merged into the media article, but that's me

Episode articles: For as long as they are in existence, I say one image in the infobox should be sufficient.

Did I miss anything? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I've removed most of the images from Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) and replaced them with refs, and removed the "too many non-free images" template. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I've done the same with most of the images in Evangelion (mecha), but I'm not completely done. I've also culled the extraneous images from Rebuild of Evangelion and added a ref to the official Rebuild website for the new NERV and SEELE logos. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 20 Image

On the Episode 20 talkpage, I posted two images for possible use in that episode's article. I suggest that people choose which one they like. Xenofan 29A 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that IP addy 74.61.41.118 has been doing a LOT of nitpick edits to the articles as of late. Some of the stuff he/she has tagged is marked elsewhere as being verified in the Classified Information from the PS2 game...I've noted as such in reverts, but if someone can provide references to the translation of the CI in cases where it's appropriate, that would be great. I'll do it as much as I can, but I won't be here all day to work on it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some individual episode reviews for Evangelion. I figure they might be helpful in developing the episode articles? -Malkinann 05:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual episode articles should normally be avoided if there really isn't anything to say about them that isn't just plot summary (WP:EPISODE). Not only that, but given how the story of Eva flows, much of any real world info to be found would likely apply to more than one episode. -- Ned Scott 09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You shouldn't use individual episode reviews. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link that Malkinann provided might not be 100% appropriate for the episode articles, but there is production info that could be mined for inclusion in the infoboxes. I'll check it out later. Willbyr (talk | contribs)

As everyone can see, I've added Wikipe-tan to the page. Here's another version of the same image: Image:WikiProjNGE.PNG
Whaddya think? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'd be real nice if we could get the Wiki-tan artist to do a specialized one, like Wiki-tan in a plugsuit or something, but that's great for now. Xenofan 29A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenofan 29A (talk • contribs) 20:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

That was my original idea, but since the plug suit designs are copyrighted, the image would've had to have been submitted as a fair use image and thus couldn't have been submitted to Commons, so I suggested the blank sign as a compromise. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The A10 clips; are copyrighted by Gainax? If not I think that them should look great on Wikipe-Tan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the A10 clips and any other kind of Eva-related imagery are copyrighted by Gainax. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original images certainly are their copyright, and their characters and locations are trademarked almost certainly, but I don't think it's very clear that a small detail like the nerve clips would constitute being a derivative work when it's a small part of the work. The relevant analogy that comes to mind here would be taking a picture of a public place where a Coca-Cola can happens to be visible. Certainly Coca-Cola owns the appearance of the iconic can, but that doesn't mean they now have a claim on your picture... --Gwern (contribs) 01:24 5 September 2007 (GMT)

This is probably something that the Wiki-folks who are more skilled than I in the vagaries of copyright law could give better info on. Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution, especially with the furor over copyrighted material being used for images. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A10 sync clips would not be incidental just because they are a significant identifier. In the cola example, it does not matter much to the image whether or not they are there, while the hair clips would matter. So, no. --GunnarRene 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*whew* Alright...in all the episode articles, everywhere I could that it seemed to fit, I changed links to episodes to actual references. I'm going to attack the individual character articles next. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information on releases of Evangelion and came across the page Revival of Evangelion. I don't know much about the page or Evangelion as a series but I'm having difficulty understanding the second section of the article. Not sure if it's appropriate to request work on articles within the Evangelion wikipedia project but, here I am, requesting at least a look-over. Thanks! 121.210.208.13 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the section on its video release, I don't like that section either. Personally, I'd be in favor of merging that film into the Evangelion media article, as I doubt that there will ever be enough material discovered to make it more than a Start-class article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the anime-manga Manual of Style talk page, there is discussion about creating a characters guideline. Thought youse should know. -Malkinann 06:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The role that Eva merchandising has played for Gainax is briefly mentioned in that article and there's a paragraph for it in Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise, but I'm wondering if anyone has seen anything anywhere that states that Eva has been Gainax's most successful merchandising vehicle. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably OR on the face of it (I'm pretty sure I've read in places that Eva was the best for merchandising, though), but I have cites for Eva grossing billions of dollars. I don't think even a plurality of that was just for sales of the anime and movies. --Gwern (contribs) 23:46 3 October 2007 (GMT)

Most likely not, the venues that Eva has been marketed into, particularly character goods for Asuka and Rei still never ceases to amaze me, and with the new movies coming out that isn't going to stop any time soon. Citing myself as an example (OR again), I have I don't know how many versions of Rei and Asuka figures, but only one version of the TV series DVDs. In any case, it seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to cite those sections that mention Eva merchandising or its financial impact. We also don't want to list everything that has been marketed under the franchise lest we start writing a shopping guide or Wiki version of E-Mono, the goods catalog that was released several years ago and could sorely use an update. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mono was released in '97, wasn't it? 11 years is more than a sorely-needed update, I'd call it nigh-obsolete. --Gwern (contribs) 20:53 7 May 2008 (GMT)

Evangelion has been merchandised more than Star Wars, both in the sheer volume of junk made and the percentage of people in Japan that bought it. I will say right now that an "utterly definitive list of all Evangelion merchandise" is absolutely impossible to make. Absolutely impossible. The best that we can do is what we've been doing: TV series/movies, official spinoff manga (NOT fan-fiction, which is as innumerable as the stars in the heavens, and isn't official anyway), video games, audio releases. One might be able to list some of the more interesting action figures, i.e. Kaiyodo's Revoltech line is pretty big now, but a list of all action figures and model kits? Impossible. That's not even counting little things like stickers and coloring books. The technology to fully categorize such massive merchandizing simply wasn't in place at the time in 96-97, and even if it were....look, if Wookipedia, the biggest topic-wiki outside of WikipediaPrime, does not even try to make an utterly definitive listing of a Star Wars merchandize, what chance do we have? We'd be Sancho Panza chasing after another windmill. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the characters who appear in multiple NGE-related works, including spin-offs like Girlfriend of Steel and Angelic Days, would it be better to state in their article leads that they are from the NGE franchise rather than specifying the anime and manga? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense since we now have a NGE franchise article, although it might be worthwhile to mention their first appearance (ie, Maya appears in multiple items, but to say she's just 'of the NGE franchise' is a bit misleading as she's hardly appeared in anything canonical); if we mention first appearance, I guess we'll follow convention and put the TV series before the manga despite the chronology. --Gwern (contribs) 20:56 7 May 2008 (GMT)

Please, lets see reason: each little entry in the "Star Wars" franchise is not mentioned nor for "Star Trek". EVERY mention of Kirk in EVERY spin off work, NOT set in the main continuity, is not given full mention. Nor is "Han Solo"'s appearances in every Star Wars spinoff game explained. What we should do is recognize that there are one or two main continuities, then a few minor ones. Yes this is establishing a two tiered system of a sort. We should have "Shinji Ikari" with the first, largest section being about the original version. Then Shinji in Rebuild of Evangelion (I think Rebuild is more important than the Manga, as the Manga was oddly *not* an adaptation of the series nor vice versa). Then "Shinji in Other Media" followed by "Official Manga by Sadamoto" then "Other spinoff works" listing videogames and minor comic continuities. The original anime is prioritized, followed by the Manga and Rebuild. By which I mean...do you seriously think the Shinji in "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Gakuen Datenroku" deserves more than a sentence of mention on the main Shinji article? We should change the one word from "this is a character from the anime NGE" to "this is a character from the NGE franchise"...to reflect the anime series vs Rebuild split, as well as possible live action future (fingerscrossed). However, expansion to add in more material from spinoffs onto main character pages would be a negative. Besides, it would be a duplicate. And think about it in terms of notability: "Shinji from Gakuen Datenroku" isn't famous...."Shinji from the anime series NGE" IS famous and article-worthy. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V, could you try to rant a little less? I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, or the connection to what Willbyr and I have written. --Gwern (contribs) 20:29 8 May 2008 (GMT)

I gotta agree with Gwern, Vi, I'm not following you enough to be able to make a comment. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate more clearly: we cannot list every spinoff continuity version of the main characters in their invidivudal article pages. For example, in Star Wars, the "Luke Skywalker" article does not focus equally on all of the continuities, including spinoff video games and comic books; the orginal movies are given preference. Similarly for Eva, yes the character pages should say "this is a character from the Eva franchise"....but the overwhelming majority of the article should be focusing on the characters from the original series....followed by the updated versions in Rebuild, manga, and maybe live-action when that happens. But frankly...we should not be wasting time inserting information into the "Shinji Ikari" article, on what "Shinji" is doing in "Gakuen Datenroku" or even "Girlfriend of Steel".....by all means we should explain what is different about Shinji in Girlfriend of Steel....on the Girlfriend of Steel article itself. Essentially, we should not clutter up the main "Shinji Ikari" article with stuff from non-notable spinoff continuities. Yes, the original, famous series gets preferential treatment (followed by Rebuild or manga). Willbry's initial question was just "should we change this to say "From the NGE franchise", and the answer is Yes. I jumped ahead and said "we shouldn't waste a lot of time talking about the minor continuities". I failed to explain this, but I don't think the main character articles should be see cluttered by extraneous information. What we have now is actually good, I was just afraid that we'd start a new drive to incorporate more non-canon info into the main articles. Do you actually plan on doing that? If the answer is no, then by all means switch them to say "Maya Ibuki, from the NGE franchise" and all will be right with the world :) --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha...I thought that's what you might be saying, but I wasn't sure. I essentially agree with you; the articles should IMO primarily focus on the characters as they are in the anime, then the manga, then Rebuild, and then if there's anything worth mentioning from the more derivative works. It's really late, so I'm not going to work on changing the lead statements over until sometime tomorrow, unless someone wants to go ahead and take care of it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the articles for Ayanami Raising Project and Shinji Ikari Raising Project be moved back to the translated titles or left in the original Japanese? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of making declaratives; I'd go with English translations. The insistence on the Japanese original title stuff verges on Wapanese, etc. That is, if we're not reading an article in Japanese directly, we really shouldn't be insisting on using Japanese names but the translated versions whenever possible (i.e. I just call him "Shinji Ikari" not "Ikari Shinji", and "Neon Genesis Evangelion" not "Shin Seiki Evangelion" etc.............at any rate, the question is raised "what English title do we use, if something never was officially translated into English, and thus has no official English title?". That is, "SSE" is officially "NGE" in English as stated by Gainax, but what of the spinoff material? Most of the video games and spinoff comics will never get an official English title. Potentially adding to the confusion is: what if we use a "working-title rough English translation"...and then one day a video game actually gets released in English under an alternate English title? That is, either A - a better translation of the original Japanese than we come up with, or B - they pick an entirely alternative title for the English release (Gainax does this alot)............the position for now I think should be "use the rough, unofficial English translation, because this article is on the English wikipedia. Of course, prominently place and Bold the official Japanese title in the first line of the article. When a better fan-translation is offered, or if Gainax develops an official better translated title/entirely alternate English title, we will address this on WikiProjectEvangelion talk on a case by case basis. If two rival translations are offered for a title and there is particular disagreement over the name, it will be brought to a formal vote/debate here on the main project talk page". --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]