Jump to content

Talk:Kaworu Nagisa/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Section break 2

Considering things got reaaaaaly large above, I'd rather just restate it very quickly here for other people to see, as I did include a bunch of stuff like new sources that are of too specific interest:

  • I wanted to replace the detailed descriptions of individual scenes of the discarded drafts made indepedently by one writer, much beyond the creator's orientation, and instead mention scenes that got reused in later works.
  • Removoing fan speculation, identified as such, that the character was based on a non-staffer. This is point blank denied by the creator and character designer and not even alluded to in more than one interview that deal with his design. There is one interview with this non-staffer where he acts dismissive of those rumours and just says he thought one scene was similar. I think it's not necessary to include disproven rumours, just like a...
  • Joke made by an interviewer when talking to the assistant director, that portrayed as being made by the director himself, ignoring he is poking fun at the fans - he does the same with Rei in that same page. It's not included in her page nor should it be here.
  • Repeated quote by that same non-staffer (source used thrice) that is just praising him instead of commenting on reception - I didn't look for an alternative yet.
  • Balancing of reception by sensationalist outlets that largely went after clicks during a fan controversy in 2019. Very silly and out context receptions by people clearly unfamiliar with the material or cultural context.FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Sophisms do not interest us, TBH. No valid reason has been given.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What sophisms? Felipe's points are very reasonable, and I don't see how they don't count as valid reasons.MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
About real world information, there is no such thing as cruft in real world. Instead there is trivia. A theory among fans might count as trivial. However, if the actual makers of a fictional work address it, then it's notable. For example, there is the famous theory of Squall Leonhart being dead after the first part of his game but it was not added to the article until Square Enix addressed the topic. The same goes for the joke of Captain Tsubasa involving never ending football fields until the author said he wanted to focus player encounters resulting in matches taking forever.Tintor2 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand that, but they haven't addressed it. Anno and Sadamoto were both asked about basing the character or the episode off someone or something in 1997 and 2008. Both just said no and kept going. Both of these publications were not exactly those of the highest journalistic reputation and were fishing for big scoops - the latter was a literal fanbook, and it's also mentioned in a 1997 (?) fan newsletter which includes other silly theories. Ikuhara is not a staffer, but he was asked about it on this fan book, and was also generally dismissive of the idea. You probably remember my other points regarding Tsurumaki (assistant director) literally not saying anything. Other characters have had similar speculation about them - Misato and Asuka in particular, some people swear that Anno dated her voice actress. There are actually more sources that are presented as "proof" for these cases but it's still the territory of fan speculation. Unless we were to put something like "Anno and Sadamoto have denied basing the character off anyone when asked, but fans have speculated about this and 13 years later this was mentioned in a fanbook". Kinda silly.
Digressing a little, I have been working on the article for the new movie recently, in the future I'd like to get decent Production sections going on for all Eva movies. These are the ones I see the most misinformation about (grrr death threats), so I really should have gotten around to it sooner. There are lots of sources being translated right now too (not necessarily publicly at the moment, I'm afraid) so I've been privy to a lot of fascinating information, both old and brand now, which I'll be adding in the future.FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I cannot verify the contents about "3.0 + 1.0" to avoid spoilers.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop. Before ruining another CE. And use common sense. Respect the rules and others.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Felipe is using common sense and being quite respectful of both the rules and other posters, which is more than I could say for you.MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
If there's still not gonna be any discussion on these, I'll just have to request for more input from others again, though it did happen outside the TP, besides Zusuchan and Marq.
You've mentioned the pamphlet and interview. Fine if you want to avoid 3.0+1.0 for now, regardless, here it is. Translations for most it, about 60% done at the moment, are posted here. And the Ogata interview is here, why do you say it goes nowhere? It's right there. Page 3.FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarqFJA87: Ah. And so would he be using common sense? And where exactly? He has eliminated things, he has added blatant juxtapositions of sources, and continues undeterred to distort reality after one year. One year in which his error and low quality is apodictic, but he continues. If that's your common sense concept, sorry, you need to read it better in the dictionary and inform you about NGE, use or sources and the very definition of quality.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This opinion is non-binding and given by an editor who has no prior subject knowledge or involvement with any editor involved. I will stop providing a third opinion and take necessary actions if this devolves into an edit war or personal attacks. Since some of this seems to revolve around cruft and trivia, I will note I do edit out cruft and trivia in articles so I err on the side of keeping it in removing such content.

To start, please concisely state your points and reasoning without mentioning what the other user did. This is quite large and I'm seeing mentions of a lengthy dispute. No opinion will be given until I see all sides/involvement's points. Pinging...

FelipeFritschF MarqFJA87 TeenAngels1234. If I missed any please ping them as well. Sennecaster (What now?) 14:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Reworded a bit since clearly I can't proofread. I remove cruft/trivia, I don't keep it in. :P

I changed this article, like the others, in a larger attempt to improve the articles on this anime. I have gathered various information and reported some points. I use this edit as a reference.

  1. Speculation, reported as such, states that this character is based on a certain Ikuhara. Ikuhara in an interview reported that this is not the case, finding similarities with a conversation he had with the director, Anno, and similarity with Anno's personality.
  2. In the new film series, the assistant director commented the character's final scene. Idem. I reported the bare fact.
  3. From an interview in the CUT magazine. I translated the phrase "liking someone" as a matter of prose, rather than "others". The meaning is the same, but IMHO prose is better.
  4. A useful interview with the voice actress Ogata has been added by others. But the number was wrong and led to a page with no specific interview, but it was fixed.
  5. In the Reception section, a queer portal praised the character by saying that there aren't many queer representations in anime at that time. I have reported what has been said as such. I am opposed to the juxtaposition of sources that do not speak about NGE, are not pertinent to the reception of this character, and lead the risk of going down the dangerous path of the Original Research.
  6. I still have some doubts about Vrai Kaiser. Despite being an active critic already mentioned as IGN editor in this article, that personal site consists of a WordPress blog. Since he is not an indisputably and undoubtedly renowned critic, I don't know if an exception can be made on the no-blog rule.

BTW, I want to ping @Tintor2: too; he also stepped in and I find him a very reasonable user and useful in NGE-articles.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's common to have speculations when it comes to real world information about the character's creation. For example Cloud Strife and Leon S. Kennedy have sections where the multiple developers responsible for his voice, personality, role, etc. due to their multiple portarayals so there is nothing about real world creation that might come across as fancruft. Blogs are kinda hard to trust. IGN had a writer named Anoop Gantayat who often worked in his own blog primarily focused in Japanese gaming while Anime News Network had a guy working in Biggest in Japan. Now that's more complicated to trust so it might be wise to ask the project if such website can count as reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it needs a balance. Currently, I think there's too much and this article is difficult to read without prior subject knowledge. I agree with your blog trust thing. Thanks for sharing your points. Sennecaster (What now?) 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. According to some fans, moreover, he may have also taken as a model Kunihiko Ikuhara, director of the animated series Sailor Moon and a friend of him. Ikuhara, in an interview, denied the rumors, comparing Kaworu's cinic personality to Anno himself; while stating that he was not in the least involved in the creation of the character, he also stated he had close correspondence with Anno, with whom he was on good terms from the early design stages of Neon Genesis Evangelion. During the production of Sailor Moon, the entire staff went on a trip to the spa, and Ikuhara chatted all night with his colleague, animator of some episodes of the series; Ikuhara himself, watching the episode, noticed how the situation with the bath was the same. This is trivial stuff. I would destroy all but "According to some fans, moreover, he may have also taken as a model Kunihiko Ikuhara, director of the animated series Sailor Moon and a friend of him. Ikuhara, in an interview, denied the rumors." It feels more like something that would belong on a Wikia/Fandom for NGE.
  2. No comment as of now.
  3. Will request someone outside of this dispute with no prior knowledge to translate. No comment as of now.
  4. I don't see the problem? Reference fixing should not be a dispute.
  5. No idea what you are referencing, there is too much conflict on this page for me to find it. No comment as of now.
  6. I have seen way too many blogspots and Wordpress blogs. It's not RS, and unless a consensus on Vrai Kaiser's merit as a critic is established, keep it out.
I would like to stress to keep it civil and to stop arguing or debating or whatever on this 3O. I'm having difficulties following this right now because I haven't heard from all sides and you are still debating each other, making it harder for me to find the points I need to look at. Sennecaster (What now?) 20:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my tardiness, I am rather busy so I might not answer right away. I'd also like to ping Smeagol_17, AngryHarpy Sjones23; Zusuchan if they can chip in, and although they generally agreed with my questionings they have limited involvement. I went in more detail in section break 2.
  1. Drafts: I am not saying to remove them, instead to delete their minutious and I believe puffery descriptions. They were made very early on, somewhat independently thus they don't represent authoral intent too well. Their nature is already mentioned so describing individual scenes feels redundant. I've added sources explaining staff reaction and production process which were absent. To compensate, I pointed out elements that were reutilized in spin-off works, though the editor thinks it's OR.
  2. The director was asked about basing the character on someone and denied it in ref #9, the character designer also in ref #17. Ikuhara is not a staffer. I find it dispensable because I know this leads to larger misconceptions. Source is a fanbook published 12 years after, of questionable reliability. There are similar speculations for other characters, so I think it falls underWP:UNDUE.
  3. Assistant director Tsurumaki did not say this, the first half. It was said by the interviewer, another non-staffer. The second half is a joke making fun of the character and should not be taken as if it is an actual intention on the creator’s parts. Not just me, the translator says the same. Context is ‘’several other jokes , part of a laid back interview, that didn’t go into other articles either. Other sources were poorly represented before.
  4. Non-specifity fits the context better. It was retranslated on my request by a professional translator and I'm following his advice. I don’t know the editor's Japanese skill though he has mentioned using Google Translate for transcription. This translator also did another request of his.
  5. The interview is clearly labelled. I sent the link to the introduction but I guess that wasn't checked. I'm questioning of a few other things: another character's voice actress joking in an obscure music event being mentioned twice, though it's debatable if that's okay as a reception.
  6. The sources [[WP:BIASED|are openly non-neutral] and contain other innacuracies. They partly revolve around a fan controversy which garnered media attention in 2019. I added a short sentence on this not being at all groundbreaking or innovative in 1995 Japan, and though the additional sources don't deal directly with the character, they provide comprehensive commentary on the cultural phenomenom he is likened to, so I wanted to balance them out. The fact they don't need to mention him already goes to show the absurdity of the claim.
  7. I also wanted to include a very recent statement reflecting on reception, by the character's voice actor, instead of Ikuhara's in that fanbook the third time (part of the same quote twice) when all he says was essentially just praising the character.
  8. Kraiser might not be that notable on his own, but we have yet again the problem that not that many people have written about the character, when you discount clickbait sites. Kraiser is the author of an explicative article on ref #97 for IGN, so I argued he could be again per WP:SPS.
  9. Finally, although I’ve been insulted again, I'm not seeking to deter his contributions. I myself have added a number of sources and have been involved in other rewrites as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelipeFritschF (talk • contribs) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Felipe. This is a third opinion response because this is getting long and complicated.
  1. I would trim even further, this article is wordy. No need for staff reactions, that's straight into trivia territory and would literally only interest fans of the show.
  2. No comment for now, I need some context, anything that's a fan/site is going to immediately not be RS and I would find a different RS that supports it or delete it entirely.
  3. Why are we even mentioning the jokes? I'm having difficulty even seeing merit of its inclusion right now. No commment for now, more context needed.
  4. Chlod can translate. Just provide me what you need translated specifically. No comment for now, need a source.
  5. Also no idea what you're talking about. No comment for now.
  6. It's all crufty or trivia, I can't tell anymore.
  7. That would be a primary source; need a secondary source to back it up if it were to be included.
  8. Start a goddamn RfC to get outside opinions.
  9. I appreciate you being civil.

Please refrain from talking with others; no idea if you have or not but just as a reminder. Kind regards and thanks for reaching out for a third opinion. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Wait. Let's call things by their name. WOTs look almost reasonable if one doesn't explain concretely or is into NGE or in the article, but that's not the case. We are all good with WoT, not all with clarity, facts and incisiveness. This is what leads to reasonableness.

  1. No. Their nature has not been described, but only hinted at. We need to clearly specify what it does mean, what the drafts say. Quickly and with common sense, as done. Generally, avoiding evasiveness.
  2. That's what is written in the article. We broached the subject, and Ikuhara denied it. In any case, definitely worthy of mention. I am simply neither a native Japanese speaker nor a native English speaker. I suspect the rumour originates from a publication named Eva Tomo no Kai (I haven't checked out the Tomo no Kai yet).
  3. The interviewer said this, but Tsurumaki agreed with him and continued the speech. Context is respected; we need to keep it in appropriate length and clarity. Nobody takes something seriously or not. We report the facts.
  4. As stated, no controversy here, since Ogata's statements on the current exact page is clear and MOS:ACCESS is respected.
  5. No. The juxtaposition of different sources is very dangerous and close to a WP:OR. Especially in a paragraph that deals only with Reception.
  6. Since for WP:SPS itself he's not an estabilished subjectmatter expert", and while his interpretation is more than reasonable, we have to delete the WordPress blog and eventually find another alternative. Not that many people have written about the character? I doubt. NGE is probably the most analyzed anime in academic literature.

BTW. For Ikuhara quote, repetita iuvant, I think the previous quote is more informative.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1. No comment.
2. If you provide what you want to be translated by someone who's completely neutral in this, I can at least clear up translation disputes. I speak English natively and the most I know of Japanese is one of the ways to say "sorry".
3. No comment.
4. Why are you citing WP:ACCESS? No comment I have no idea what you are talking about.
5. If you have issues about OR, cool. This entire article is filled with little RS and a lot of trivial stuff to me.
6. I have to agree, it's a contested RS. At this point, I'm submitting a RfC on the source if it gets out of hand.
As a note; do not continue to reply to other people involved. This is getting hard for me to track and I can't accurately figure out which points I need to follow. This is a reminder to remain civil, and thank you for giving your opinion and reasoning. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm not in-depth on everything that's being discussed here, I might make a few mistakes-if so, I hope Felipe'll clear them up.

  1. If the descriptions of the early drafts that were initially given seemingly now count as "hinted at", then I'm not sure what an actually good description would be in your mind. As has been said before, this is Wikipedia, not a place that needs detailed description of how every last draft changed one character. Say: "Compared to the character as he ultimately appeared, the earlier drafts had such and such differences". It's simple, relatively concise and gives off cool info without being too wordy and too detailed for a website that is, once again, ultimately not the place for extremely in-depth discussion. (I'm also pretty sure there's a lot more interesting about the earlier versions of Kaworu than merely his and Shinji's relationship.) And quite frankly what you wrote was too wordy and too detailed, instead of being done "quickly", as you just said yourself is the best way to get things done.
  2. Ikuhara and others having said he is not the inspiration for Kaworu is worth mentioning, but not in a way that is too wordy and invites misconceptions which the current edit is. There is no need to note that Ikuhara had close correspondence with Anno or that the spa trip was "similar" to the bath scene in ep.24. The way it's all worded comes off as inviting misconceptions, regardless of whether or not that's the actual intention, which I sincerely believe it's not.
  3. Tsurumaki was joking. A joke is not a serious agreement.

It seems to me that the core issue remains the same-too much content than can be reasonably expected from Wikipedia and a lot of content that invites misconceptions about Kaworu's character and the relationship between him and Shinji-by which I mean the relationship is made out to be a lot more homosexual than it actually is. (It never transcends homoeroticism, for that matter.) Zusuchan 18:43 19 April 2021(UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on this. I agree with all of your points, and thanks for providing another neutral and somewhat outsider opinion. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Aeje.
  1. Are you seriously saying that a presentation like that brief compendium is too detailed? Really?
  2. And exactly what would lead to errors? I haven't been told yet.
  3. You know that half of the interviews with NGE staff (Schizo/Parano, 1.0 CRC and so on) and, generally, Japanese animators are full of "(laughs)", but we have to report the things worthy of mention cum grano salis in a neutral way and common sense like this, right?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not addressing your points. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Quod scripsi, scripsi.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Alright so:
  1. Including the drafts in the first place is because, somewhat uniquely to this character, his appearance was influenced by the scriptwriter's early ideas which differ considerably from the outline given to him by the director. Creative process is described concisely here: [1] [2] [3] I've included the reactions because there is a notion that the drafts were the "real intention", not something that surprised everyone else and led to further changes. Describing them in detail is redundant and undue, IMO. And yes, I think the descriptions are long and unnecessary.
  2. Simple, the idea that because this unrelated non-staffer found similarities twelve years later, people can assume the character actually was modelled on someone, despite the director and designer's explicit denial. I know is might not seem obvious, but I am very well aware of the conclusions people draw from things in the wikis that aren't left clear. Source of the rumour is indeed Eva Tomo no Kai (lit. Eva Fan Club) a 1997 newsletter compiling fan theories and rumours, comics and such. It essentially says "did you know that some fans think Kaworu was modelled on Kunihiko Ikuhara, a friend of Director Anno, though it is unknown if he's be a model on personality or appearance". There are scans available here. So even that source treats it as trivia.
  3. Tsurumaki: we're arguing that it is not worthy of inclusion as it bears no actual importance to the character's development, like the preceding joke surrounding Rei/Shinji doesn't. It is already not correctly represented. This becomes even more egregious with the way the final movie turned out.
  4. Not many people have written about this supposed innovation except activist and clickbait Western sites that tend to ascribe this to pretty much everything in a culture they're not familiar with. They make many other mistakes regarding Eva. That's why I think it needs contextualization for NPOV.
  5. I'm not dying on the Kraiser hill but sure enough it could warrant an RfC. I included it because it's an useful comment on popular reaction, instead of just praise from randoms that barely know the show or context. Too bad we need to rely on "ClickBait Resources".
  6. The VA (Ishida) quote is from the pamphlet accompanying the new movie, which does make it a secondary source. It's just a comment on popularity. The current Ikuhara quote is used thrice and was published in that fanbook, and is also secondary. Besides being more useful, I wanted to include it for not being the same.
  7. By all means Sennecaster, if you wish to ask someone else or ultimately ask for some form of arbitration, I'd be happy to hear more opinions. I find it an enjoyable discussion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

3O statements

So far, this revolves mostly around passionate editors that are debating the minutae of including what looks to be trivia. I would like to state that I have no prior knowledge of this conflict, I know nothing about NGE or this person, and I have zero interest in cruft and trivia being in an article. I am inclined to remove anything that does not have RS or is fan speculation.

Reminder to minimize debate with each other, to provide context/references, and to keep it civil. Thanks for your cooperation in this. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am confused by the order of these comments. Better to answer in chronological order here one comment at a time each.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll answer again ASAP but unfortunately I'm having some significant schedule conflicts. Hopefully some hours from now. I have information on some sources being discussed which are quite interesting.FelipeFritschF (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for this late response. This 2O been way over my head (this is probably only my third), and I feel bad for not delivering my final thoughts sooner. I think that currently, the inclusion of detail is overall not constructive to the article. It is overly specific and delves into trivial or even CRUFTy at times. This page is having a hard time holding my interest and I'm reading this with an editor's eye. Some of the excessive detail can be cut and probably should be cut, like ", or 'Knockin' on Heaven's Door'" (the series' twenty-fourth episode)" and "The boy would have been allowed by Nerv to enter its laboratories and, after a clash in which Shinji found himself "in the dilemma of having to fight against an anthropomorphic enemy", "the greatest secret of the organization" would be revealed." (I'm having a hard time seeing the latter's connection to the section anyways). Blogspot references should be completely nuked out unless they are verified to be the blog of a respected critic in the broader anime community. Any translations should be worked out by someone on-wiki who has a strong understanding of Japanese and does not use machine translations. I think what Zusuchan said summarizes my feeling very well on this matter. There is a lot of extra detail that me as a reader and me as an editor is reluctant to wade through. I don't see any hints of personal attacks, but some of the statements and tones could be taken as uncivil or aggressive. I hope this helped, and I ask that possibly both people involved in the core of this step away from the article for a week or two to re-evaluate their arguments if you both disagree heavily with my opinion. Thanks for cooperating with me and for seeking some form of dispute resolution. Kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 22:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sennecaster, thank you for your input. Sans for the staff opinion on the drafts I don't think I disagree with you or Zusuchan at all, so I'm sorry for giving you that impression. I'll ask for an RfC on Kraiser. However, I don't think we're anything closer to consensus. I'll try to ask more editors to join in, if possible, and will probably ask for some other form of dispute resolution. I'm partly in a hurry because there is a GOCE request for this article, of course, it's not like it can't be edited afterwards either. I'm open to any suggestions you might have. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kaworu Nagisa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. First I'll give it a big look and might list any possible issues in this section.Tintor2 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234:

  • First of all the lead feels a bit complicated in terms of theme. I would recommend the first paragraph to focus on his main appearances, the second about his creation and voice, and the third one about general reception. Since the character has been more prominent in 3.0 maybe such film should be highlighted in the lead.
 Done Check it out
  • "Fifth Child and a Nerv agency pilot" sounds a bit confusing as normal readers would be confused what is exactly the former
 Done I will have to remove it from the other articles too, then.
Creation
  • "Saigo no shisha": I'm pretty sure "Saigo" means "last" but I would add literal translation too.
 Done
  • The second paragraph lacks the first link of Shinji Ikari and an explanation to who he is.
 Done
  • "According to some fans, he may have also used Kunihiko Ikuhara, the director of the animated series Sailor Moon and a friend of his, as a model. In an interview, Ikuhara denied the rumors, comparing Kaworu's cynical personality to Anno himself, while stating he was not in the least involved in the creation of the character. He also said he had close correspondence with Anno, with whom he was on good terms from the early design stages of Neon Genesis Evangelion." Lacks a reference
 Done
Appearances
  • "Kaworu has the appearance of a boy with gray hair, pale complexion, and red eyes,[50][51] and usually refers to human beings with the term Lilim.[52]" This is a bit random. The design of the character should be left to be subject of discussion only if the artists like Sadamoto mention him (which I think it's already done) as well as for alt of images.
 Done
  • By any chance did something happen to Kaworu's minirole in "End of Evangelion"? I remember he was a judge with the other Rei when Gendo is rejected by Rei 3. Since it's a small mention you could mix it with Neon Genesis Evangelion and make a "Neon Genesis Evangelion and The End of Evangelion"
 Done But I'm not sure about the title. Since there is a continuity I would simply leave "Neon Genesis Evangelion".

That's all for today. Will check later sections later. Good work in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Wired compared Kaworu with Ryo Asuka, the main antagonist of Gō Nagai's Devilman." I can imagine the comparison but the article just leaves it like this. Is it possible to explain why?
Cultural impact
  • The character ranked high in popularity polls.[156][157][158][159][160 This is quite an overkill. Can you expand on the prose like "based on the impact in his series[156], among others"
  • Both Chris Beveridge and Dani Cavallaro seem to have the same opinion so you could mix them togetherl.

The rest feels easy to understand to me. Fix the issues I'll gladly pass it.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234:

@Tintor2: Tried my best.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Passing the review. Good work in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ikuhara

So it seems there is an edit issue between TeenAngels1234 and FelipeFritschF. Please stop doing this engage in a discussion before you might be blocked. Also, Felipe seems to be use anon accounts. Use always your own account and remember to be civil.Tintor2 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tintor. Thank you :') Always hoping for a respectful environment. I don't think that IP is Felipe, honestly, but it made a questionable change nonetheless. It's probably another user who does not want to be recognized.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Tintor2 sorry, you might not have seen the rather enormous amount of edits, including by anons, in the Eva articles, around the JP release in March some 8 accounts were fighting over a single word on the page for the new film, and there are even more now, you can see the views spiking too. The IP is Italian according to WHOIS, and I'm not. I've seen even more edits on the fan wiki and tons of vandalism as well, in fact, I'll go deal with it right now as I've been doing for a while too, which has been tiring me. Yes, I agree with the change but that's another matter entirely, as you can see by previous discussion. FelipeFritschF (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Guys please don't edit war. If editors keep reverting each other, both of you might be blocked for an unknown time, making all your intentions be wasted. I'll ask for a third opinion.Tintor2 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Tintor2 Can you give it? The changes are on Vrai Kaiser's website, which, as far as I can say, is a blog, Tsurumaki's comment on 2.0 final scene and Ikuhara's interview.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I had asked for a WP:3O before and it had been unproductive. By all means you can ask for one again, but I think it's better to get someone completely uninvolved. I had asked other less involved editors directly as well though they didn't necessarily wanted to join. There are other changes that had been discussed before also. FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I already asked there. Be patient and please avoid reverting edits. Who knows how much time you might be blocked for doing these edits.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: It looks like this was just a fan theory, which the creator stated was inaccurate, and no reliable and independent source flags as being of any particular significance. That being the case, it would seem to be undue weight to include it in the article; there are generally innumerable fan theories regarding popular characters. Such material is generally excessive detail for an encyclopedia article, and I see no reason to believe the situation different here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the response. That is my position as well. Please let me re-state my argument from the previous 3O:
  1. The director was asked about basing the character on someone and denied it in ref #9, the character designer also in ref #19. Ikuhara is not even a staffer, and is dismissive himself of the theory that he's a target of. I find it dispensable because I know this leads to larger misconceptions. Source is a fanbook published 12 years after, of questionable reliability. There are similar speculations for other characters, so I think it falls under WP:UNDUE.
There are other lingering questions from the previous 3O, if you can provide input. This is the entire diff for context. I can wait, of course:
  1. Drafts: I am not saying to remove them altogether, instead to delete their minutious and I believe puffery descriptions. They were made very early on, somewhat independently thus they don't represent authorial intent too well. Their nature is already mentioned so describing individual scenes feels redundant. I've added sources explaining staff reaction (#20, expanded on #9 and #19) and production process (#21). To compensate, I pointed out elements that were reutilized in spin-off works, though the editor thinks it's OR.
  2. Assistant director Tsurumaki did not say this, the first half. It was said by the interviewer, another non-staffer. The second half is a joke making fun of the character and should not be taken as if it is an actual intention on the creator’s parts. Not just me, the translator says the same. Context is several other jokes , part of a laid back interview, that didn’t go into other articles either. Other sources were poorly represented before.
  3. Non-specifity fits the context better. It was re-translated on my request by a professional translator and I'm following his advice. I don’t know the editor's Japanese skill though he has mentioned using Google Translate for transcription. This translator also did another request of his.
  4. That part mentioning Orihime/Hikoboshi: I'm questioning of a few other things: another character's voice actress joking in an obscure music event being mentioned twice, including an image, and I don't think it's okay as a reception.
  5. The sources are openly non-neutral and contain other innacuracies. They partly revolve around a fan controversy which garnered media attention in 2019. I added a short sentence on this not being at all groundbreaking or innovative in 1995 Japan, and though the additional sources don't deal directly with the character, they provide comprehensive commentary on the cultural phenomenom he is likened to, so I wanted to balance them out. The fact they don't need to mention him already goes to show the absurdity of the claim.
  6. One critical review was discussed here and keeps getting removed.
  7. I also wanted to include a very recent statement reflecting on reception, by the character's voice actor, instead of Ikuhara's in that fanbook the third time (part of the same quote twice) when all he says was essentially just praising the character. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
That's rather a bit much for a single discussion, and would probably just lead to a hopeless tangle. I think probably better to discuss each of those points individually under their own heading. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Certainly. I just followed the previous 3O format. I can wait. FelipeFritschF (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I see the IP user is insistent on it also and the high number of edits continues in related articles, I did remove it again just now, do you have any input @Seraphimblade, possibly? No hurry, of course, Thank you. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I have more to say than what I did. If agreement still can't be reached, a full request for comments may be the next step needed. Third opinions aren't some kind of binding decision, they're just an additional person's thoughts to hopefully help move a discussion forward. If that doesn't work, an RfC will get more input than that and hopefully make the consensus clear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaworu_Nagisa/Archive_3&oldid=1241685735"