Talk:The End of Evangelion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contested info moved to talk

• Although the film is considered less abstract than the series' end, many fans disliked its extreme graphic violence and disturbing themes relative to the original series. It is, however, a common misconception that Anno created the film as revenge on the ex-fans of the TV series. The numerous hate-mail and death threats sent to Anno are related to the theatrical release of Death and Rebirth, not the TV series.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}
• A novel of the same name was published by Wolf Haas the year after the film's release, and is sometimes mistakenly believed to be the basis for the song.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}
• [The film contains some highly postmodern sequences, including] some live action sequences including scenes of the seiyū of Misato, Rei, and Asuka (supposedly posing as their characters){{Fact|date=May 2008}}
• Several creative changes were made to the English audio track of the film, including some added dialogue and addition of several sound effects. In addition to these alterations some fans have also criticized the translation, with certain scripting choices (such as the use strong profanity in two scenes) seen as overly liberal

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This page linked to Semen's page?

This movie is mentioned in the Semen page's Popular Culture section... Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.239.69 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's someone's idea of a joke - it's referring to the infamous opening scene (after the lake), inside the hospital: "He accidentally dislodges her hospital gown, revealing her body, and masturbates while standing next to her bed." --Gwern (contribs) 23:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple translations of the final line

There has been edit warring on this page between Gwern (talk · contribs) and Bread Ninja (talk · contribs) over whether a multitude of translations of the last line spoken in The End of Evangelion should be included in the article. Back on Gwern's talk page I asked them: "How does the addition of multiple translations of the last words spoken in The End of Evangelion improve/worsen the encyclopedic quality of the article?" I'm still waiting for answers to that question. Goodraise 12:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivial, it's not directly related to the interpretation of the final scene, more just additional translations (which are extremely similar). We can just state that the two "vaguely" or "some-what" translated as "i feel sick" and "How disgusting" (from the given debate within the section), but not add in any additional ones since they're practically the same. There just not needed, and the sources don't relate to EoE at all.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's been more than long enough now. In your place, Bread Ninja, I'd reinstate my edit now, including a link to this discussion in the edit summary. Goodraise 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Somehow this is still an issue as the multiple refs of the translation being used where it doesnt need any which is in a quote.Lucia Black (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad Grammar, confusing sentences?

Under the Interpretation section, after the section from the English actor for Asuka, there is several spots that are very confusing and seems to have been cut apart and never fixed.

Example: "Some state that, despite tBut, as we saw in the series finale, there are many worlds, many possible people that each individual person can be, and we choose and guide our lives towards different ends as time passes. I find it hard to reconcile the Shinji here, who dismisses Instrumentality, with the Shinji we saw in the series, who embraced it.he somber ending the results of Instrumentality are not permanent."

What is the first part of the sentence trying to say? (What does 'despite tBut' mean?) And the second part? Why is it referring to 'I' in the second sentence? Is that word at the beginning of the 3rd sentence supposed to be 'The'? Is this really the place to show how it should be interpreted unless it is the official released and verified interpretation? Maybe a new article on interpretation of Envangelion should be considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.36.81 (talk • contribs) 16:02, July 1, 2011

I removed the passage and have asked the editor if it was mistakenly inserted. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in refs

Quotes aren't necessary in the refs if they provide links. ANd sorry for the link description it's supposed to say "Featured articles don't proved QUOTES" not links. WHy provide links to the information if we're merely going to quote them anyways? There's no point, and gwern you don't even properly cite refs. So why even remove the quotes?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It is called an excerpt. The link is important to show where the quote comes from and also so you can see the quote in context. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

it doesn't prove how necessary it is. You only prove how unnecessary it is. PLus, this is the only article i see that does that. Makes the refs even more unnecessarily long. The quote is from the link, it's quoting from the link. It's not like it's a quote taken from the link.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The only article? Just off the top of my head, Fujiwara no Teika or Medici Bank. Funnily enough, none of the reviewers for either seemed to object to them, which I wrote in the same style as this, and I have never had to edit war over them. Hm, what's the common factor here... --Gwern (contribs) 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They're mainly using Offline sources. It's not even comparable.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not all of them are offline... And if that's all that matters to you, I don't see why we should have to wait until the links up and die, as I said on the project page. Why would you wait for the hurricane to hit before boarding up your house? --Gwern (contribs) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why they get archived. And that's not even the point, sure, eventually alot of them will get archived, but not all of them will die. even so, it doesn't matter. You just want it to.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Every online source will go offline eventually, even if that's in a million years from now. More importantly, every online source might go offline at any time. I think we can all agree on that. But that has nothing to do with whether excerpts should be included in the references, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the content of the cited pages. If a page goes offline, the Wikipedia reader will no longer be able to verify what the page said, whether the reference includes an excerpt or not. Whether featured articles do something is also irrelevant, because FAC reviewers are fallible human beings. They miss things. And consensus can change as well. I think the first thing we should do is figure out how far we actually agree. Would both of you agree with me on the following statement? Excerpts can be useful to the reader, but sometimes they're obtrusive. Goodraise 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I already agreed to that. Excerpts are unecessary and suggest removing them from at least the online sources if not both online and offline. Sure they can be usefull...but not completely necessary to keeping the articles from losing its quality.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuing under the assumption that Gwern also agrees to my proposition above. We should weigh each excerpt's usefulness against its obtrusiveness to decide which of them, if any, should be kept. Agreed? You don't deny that the excerpts in this article have at least some degree of usefulness, do you? Goodraise 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts are merely additional. Usefulness to that extent is "optional". So I don't think they're useful to what the article "needs".Bread Ninja (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The quotes are fine. Having them all in one place makes it easier to read them, instead of having to click around to a dozen different articles and try to find out which part they said anything relevant about this film. Dream Focus 07:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Again, they're only helpful to an "optional" level, not a necessary one. And looking at how they're placed, they clutter the entire article. Why do you always come in at these certain times Dream Focus? Nothing personal, but i just find it slightly odd, that it's always you (gwern obvious reasons). Usually, you care more about saving articles that are NfD. I just don't find it reasonable enough. Hopefully this is more discussion won't rely on vote-count than reason. Because i'm the only one providing reasons countering whats stated. They aren't necessary, and currently doing more damage then helping. I understand they're there to help for whatever reasons that isn't really important. But what is important is being able to read through it. For now....quotes won't help make it anymore verifiable like Goodraise has said. SO why bother putting in extras?Bread Ninja (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• The content is interesting to those who actually read the article, and are interested in the subject manner. Helps aid in their understanding of things. And I saw a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga which I have on my watch list, I regularly going through all the articles prodded or nominated for deletion in this project, as I have for years now. Dream Focus 08:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to share my personal opinion on this article, which is essentially the same as the one I expressed here. As I have mentioned in the past, almost all Neon Genesis Evangelion articles have a wide availability of reliable secondary sources to easily achieve featured-class status, so this article should be aiming to achieve that status. But I do not believe that having long quotes, either within the body text or in the citations, helps improving the quality of an article towards being a featured-class article because a collection of quotes goes against what Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOTDIR) and that is more appropriate for Wikiquote. In this specific article, it can be easily seen that the quotes constitute around 30% of the article text and, from my point of view, it seems that almost half the article is composed of quotes visually. As I mentioned before, even with all these quotes, which are used to improve the quality, the article does not pass the referencing and citation criteria of the assessment quality scale, which implies that the current quotes at least haven't improved the article in that aspect. I really have a hard time finding a featured-class article (not good-class or lower) which uses as many quotes as this one. I can say that at least that none of the WikiProject anime and manga featured articles (Shojo Beat, Madlax, Tokyo Mew Mew and School Rumble) uses such long quotations in citations or in the body text and this also appears to be the case with featured film articles, which I mention since The End of Evangelion is a film, so I think that this is a strong indication that quotes are not needed to improve the quality of a film, anime or manga article and, therefore, they are not necessary for The End of Evangelion either. I share all views from WP:QUOTEFARM and I believe that using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. This concern about long quotes is also expressed in citation templates like {{Cite book}} where it says about the quote parameter: Should not be excessive in length: More than a few sentences is rarely needed, and if needed then the Wikipedia article's prose should probably more adequately address the topic and/or quote the material directly, e.g. with {{quote}}. From my point of view, The End of Evangelion article abuses of quotes in citations and I believe that the quality of the article would be improved if the number and length of quotes were reduced to from their current size and number. Jfgslo (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"By opening their hearts..."

We're not getting anywhere up there, so let's try looking at one of the experts in dispute:

"By opening their hearts to one another Shinji and Asuka at last have a chance at happiness. Unfortunately the brutality of this scene obscures its tender meaning, and the Evangelion saga ends on a dour note despite reprising the positive message from its television conclusion." (Crandol, Mike. "Understanding Evangelion". Anime News Network. Retrieved August 29, 2011.)

From this the article makes "The meaning of the final line is obscure". For anyone who didn't notice: This claim is not supported by the source, which is referring to the meaning of the scene, not the final line. Something needs to be done here, because there's no point to including references that don't support any part of the article. Goodraise 08:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

removing the quotes from online sources will allow to use them more better by putting the same reference in multiple areas in the article. Quotes make the references singular. It makes it unnecessarily more complicated. I'll get into that later, because thats an issue i want to fix, but doesn't feel like it will clear up any faster until we clear the current.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your point is invalid because you aren't going to use the same reference in multiple areas. Don't claim it's better because it will be used when it won't be used. It's perfectly acceptable to use one of the many referencing systems like 'Meaney 2010' in the event that one actually does refuse a reference. --Gwern (contribs) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Point being the references are cluttered when things can be simplerand easier to edit. I plan to simplifyy the article and making it less wordy than it needs to be. And lets not assume it wont be used multiple times. I already saw 2 references siting from the same source using 2 different quotes.Lucia Black (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

anyone else have anything to say?Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. Removing the reference from the article now. Goodraise 03:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"But, as we saw in the series finale..."

Looking at another of the excerpts:

"But, as we saw in the series finale, there are many worlds, many possible people that each individual person can be, and we choose and guide our lives towards different ends as time passes. I find it hard to reconcile the Shinji here, who dismisses Instrumentality, with the Shinji we saw in the series, who embraced it....It’s impossible to choose a definitive conclusion because it’s all real, it all exists and it all tells us something about the essential being that is Shinji Ikari. Shinji chokes Asuka as they lie on a postapocalyptic beach. Why? I honestly don’t know for sure at this point." ("Thoughts on Stuff - Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion". Patrick Meaney. Retrieved August 29, 2011.)

Like with the quote above, the article makes of this "The meaning of the final line is obscure". I may be missing some big piece of the puzzle here, but it seems to me that the quote does not support the claim. Anyone care to set me right? Goodraise 03:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Seems a lil odd.....yeah, the line didn't exactly said obscure nor anything close to that. Removal of it might be best or reworking in another way more exact.Lucia Black (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Goodraise, if the scene is obscure, how can the final line be clear? --Gwern (contribs) 21:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is whether the source actually says what is written within the article. Even if what it says is true, the source has to be preciseLucia Black (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by Bread Ninja?

This is over. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfgslo#The_End_of_Evangelion If Jfgslo has never edited this article or its talk page before, why are you asking them to come and state their opinion here? Dream Focus Not in this article, however he did help once before on removing complete in-universe information before. And yes, it may be canvassing a bit, but in reality, any decent editor to WP:ANIME would be "canvassing". He just seemed to be the most passionate at the time. And i also asked from someone else before him named GroovySandwich who did a very good job cleaning up the other NGE-related charcter articles. Regardless, i don't really care. Honestly, the less direct i am, the more it's considered canvassing originally i asked people to side with me. But however all i asked is for him to put in his word regardless if it goes in sync with my ideas or not. At this point, i could care less if someone accuses me of canvassing, for an article that has been isolated by two opposing editors, what more can someone ask? Constantly ask for random 3rd party whenever we get into an argument? it's pretty obvious nothing is going to work. And also, Goodraise seems to be merely trying to be neutral whether or not he agrees with any of us, he most likely doesn't want to due to the fact of his view on both of us. Anyways, Jfgslo already put his opinion on the matter before in WT:ANIME if that counts for anything.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Considering that Jfgslo commented on the matter discussed above,[1] it doesn't seem out of line to ask them to repeat their stance here. I suggest closing this. By the way, Bread Ninja, that "nothing is going to work" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not working because you're not giving it a chance. Consensus building takes time and effort. I'm also not neutral. I merely haven't made up my mind yet. "Consensus discussion has a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." (WP:CONSENSUS) So far I haven't been persuaded by either side of the argument. Goodraise 08:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC) So you knew he'd agree with you, and would remove something you don't like to see, so you invited him over. You'd not have done that if he didn't agree with you though. Anyway, he hasn't been editing for a few days, since someone commented on his talk page about his mass nominating 124 articles in one stretch. So don't expect a speedy reply. Dream Focus 08:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC) I knew he had reasons outside the general bias for the record, i invited him to provide his own ideas, not agree with mine. I just had a feeling i would agree with his ideas. And don't think you're proving much of a point Dream Focus, canvassing isn't a bad thing, and honestly was rather ridiculous to even consider just one person. For the record (again) i asked dozens of people for help in fixing this article before any edit wars occurred. Now I'm only searching for people who have had proper experience in editing articles that appear to be active and . You see....I'm not trying to "just" remove quotes in refs...a complete overhaul on the article. Completely organized, and keeping the key information without making things appear superfluous or out of place information. I made my point very clear on the previous discussion that were discussed (which again always seems to drop replies when i get to the big things). The articles of NGE tend to run on several things. 1) Additional 1 or two tidbits of info that really barely been verified at all and/or information that moves slightly away from the main topic. 2) Superfluous long descriptions or explanations and/or put in intricate detail. That's what i think the quotes are doing. helpful? 25% yes, 75% no. necessary? 100% no. i have 1.75 no's on my end. Keeping them won't improve the article. However like i said, i suggest only removal of the ones online as we can already verify easily what they say. NOt only that but we can potentially use them more than once. Wikipedia isn't going to make things that much more convenient for others in just a small group of editors want it to be for one article. Too much freedom, nott enough organization.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Bread Ninja, you've already been told that canvassing is unacceptable. Please try WP:3O instead of contacting editors you feel may agree with you. --Malkinann (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Canvassing isn't wrong. and that's on their decision. It would be odd to invite people i "dont" find useful. Regardless, this isn't a problem i invited one person, just one. to come directly to the talk page, to provide ideas on how to manage the article. And i'm not stupid, i read WP:CANVAS. It can be a good thing, and it doesn't even look like you're paying attention at all. I suggest we drop the canvassing excuse. I invited one person to provide ideas. What this person may or may not say exactly what i'm saying. in fact, he might say something completely different. Other than that, he seemed available at the time as no one came in. I can invite any decent editor here, and it would've been considered canvassing. problem is, you're trying to use it as a way to say "canvassing is bad". i think "Anyone" would agree with me who has made fine contributions to WP:ANIME. Jfgslo just seemed like he was available at the time and he has made contributions to NGE previous times. regardless...this is annoying, because how indirect it all of this actually is. Anyone would agree with me.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC) "Canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." - you've already admitted that you invited Jfgslo because you felt he would agree with you. " it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour." By inviting only those who you feel would agree with you specifically, you could be considered to have engaged in votestacking. If you feel you must invite people, invite all the relevant people. --Malkinann (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC) ON future discussions that "he" would bring up. I'm saying i would agree with him, a distinct difference. I invite those would be right, and even then, there have been those who surprised me and not have been correct. And it's not about votecount. Like i said, he already gave his opinion on the matter. It makes no difference. I'm inviting him to make his own discussions.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC) I am surprised at your lack of comprehension here - it biases the discussions if you only invite those who agree with you, those who you feel are "correct". "Votestacking", regardless of whether the discussion is a vote or not, is the Wikipedian term for "only inviting people who agree with you to a discussion", and it is inappropriate. If you feel you must invite people, WP:CANVASS explains a better method of asking people so that it is fair and unbiased. --Malkinann (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC) i'm just saying that i invited someone to make his own discussions in planning ahead on fixing these articles. \. He already put his opinion without me saying anything. And again, i invited dozens and dozens of ppl before this edit war. I invited him because i thought he'd have more free time considering he replied rather fast. I get what you're saying, but i hate how lack of depth you chose to look at it. It's not so black make it out to be. I didn't do it for the sake of votestack. I even disagreed on a couple of things he has brought up. If i invite you, it wouldn't be any different, or thefarix (in fact, if i could, thefarix would be the first choice). Anyone i invite would be considered bias unless i specifically ask for someone who i know knows very little in proper discussions. The fact that i invited anyone, would be considered canvassing in a bad way, because you don't know what i was trying to do. For the record, Jfgslo was invited to make his own thoughts due to previous contributions before to NGE, availability. Him siding with me? i think anyone would. anyone i would've invited that i knew would be considered canvassing and, it's merely one. like i said, wasn't about votestacking? you choose to ignore that, then i really have nothing more to say to you about it.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) The way you went about it, only inviting someone you felt would agree with you (and be "correct" in their edits), and your previous history with notifications for this discussion means that your invitation to this person could be interpreted as the kind of canvassing known as "votestacking". Your assertion that canvassing is good is also worrying. If you truly feel that "anyone would side with you", why not take it to the project again, or to WP:RFC, instead of inviting only one person that you feel will agree with you? Please read WP:CANVAS more carefully so that you can notify people in a way that cannot be interpreted as any variant of votestacking. --Malkinann (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Many of us are canvassing even now if you pay attention. If you said i was canvassing "inappropriately" then, that would make this argument seem less of a n attempt to make accusations. That's like saying you're making bold edits and that's bad. However, dream focus only seemed to discover the term that day.I invited people that were part of WP:ANIME who had experience with anime and. So, again. i didn't invite him so he can agree with me. But like i said....not about "votecount". So let's stop getting judgmental, in fact, i invited as many as i could that day, regardless if it was on my side. You see, you keep playing the past card. I'm getting tired of this, so i want to drop it NOW.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. Please be more careful with your notifications in future, so that you don't have to go through this again. --Malkinann (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the quote fom the trading card mentioned in the article

"In the sea of LCL, Shinji wished for a world with other people. He desired to meet them again, even if it meant he would be hurt and betrayed. And just as he had hoped / wanted, Asuka was present in the new world. Only Asuka was there beside him. The girl whom he had hurt, and who had been hurt by him. But even so, she was the one he had hoped/wished for...."

Is this quote supposed to illustrate that Shinji loves Asuka? I was just interested. He did, after all, say to Asuka that he wanted to be with her forever earlier on. zictor23 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2012(UTC)

It's rather a matter of interpretation. You see Rei shippers all over, even though Asuka is the only one suggested by the texts... One rather wonders how Rebuild will turn out - a more clearly Asuka romantic ending? --Gwern (contribs) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That'll be good Gwern. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm surprised that in Rebuild they haven't included the scenes where Shinji tried to kiss Asuka when she was sleeping next to him and also that famous scene where Asuka kisses Shinji for the first time. Perhaps we will in the next one.

By the way, the doujinshi "Evangelion: Re-Take" (which is set after "EoE" and is known to have been read by Asuka's original voice actress Yuko Miyamura) focuses mainly on Shinji and Asuka's relationship, and is a fantatsic read. I mentioned this in another post, but I would love to see this get an official release and/or animated. zictor23 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012(UTC)

Uhh, what?

Among the other insert songs are "Komm, süsser Tod" (Come, Sweet Death), an upbeat song (which appears in the film at the beginning of Instrumentality), "THANATOS -If I Can't Be Yours", which is played in both the end credits and the credits to episode 25' (the song is based around "THANATOS", a background music piece used in the series) and "Dream On", a classic rock ballad performed by Aerosmith.

"Dream On", a classic rock ballad performed by Aerosmith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.243.218 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Refs

• EX media review (archive)

Lucia Black (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Shinji's words to Asuka

Regarding the scene where Shinji opens up to Asuka (presumably in his mind; it isn't clear if this was really happening), and then strangles her after she rejects both his feelings and his cries for help, there are soem different translations to what Shinji said to Asuka. I would be worth sharing this information with other Eva fans. In an official sub of the End of Evangelion, Shinji’s words are translated as “I want to help you, Asuka, and I want to stay with you,” while another English sub of the Japanese version (http://eva-armageddon.com/Scripts/EOE2.html) translates Shinji’s words as “I want to help you, and I want to be with you forever.” Given the context of this scene, in which Shinji makes clear his feelings to Asuka, it is likely that both translations have the same meaning; that Shinji loved Asuka, and wanted to be in a relationship with her. A comparison can be made with the science-fiction anime Outlaw Star, in a scene in the final episode in which the main female protagonist Melfina reveals to the main male protagonist Gene Starwind that she loves him. When Gene asks her what her wish is, various English subs of the Japanese version translate her words as “I want to stay who I am. I want to stay with you Gene,” while the English dub (which, like the Evangelion dub, stays faithful to the original Japanese scripts) translates her words as “I want to stay who I am. I want to be with you forever Gene.” Despite the different words, the meaning is the same in both versions; that Melfina's wish was to be with Gene (whom she loves), and Gene returns Melfina's feelings by wishing for the same thing and then kissing her. zictor23 (talk) 12:41, 11 February (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources discussing the nuances, we can see if it can be added. It wouldn't be more than an brief mention, though. Without those reliable sources, it would be considered original research. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Would reliable sources include links to the subbed and dubbed versions of the final episode of "Outlaw Star," which include those quotes I mentioned? In the case of the link I provided, does that count as a reliable source?zictor23 (talk) 14.24, 12 February (UTC)

No, a source for a totally different movie wouldn't be appropriate for our article, and this is such a trivial detail it isn't worth worrying about. Popcornduff (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn’t think it was a trivial matter, in terms of the signficance of Shinji’s words to Asuka, which is why I thought it might be worth a mention, perhaps as a footnote. The way I understood that scene (which may or may not have taken place in Shinji’s mind) was that Shinji was opening up to Asuka about he felt for her, and although I could be wrong in saying this, its possible that the fansub (which translated Shnji’s words as “I want to help you somehow, and be with you forever”) might have conveyed more clearly the signficance of what Shinji was telling Asuka than both the dub and the official sub did (basically, that he is in love with Asuka, and wants to be with her). There is a discussion about this on forum.evageeks.org on a Page 2 of a topic entitled Dub Translation and Overall Presentation Issue, which goes into more detail about this. I had problems opening the page though, but another forum I came across (http://www.animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=199964&page=7) also goes into a lot of detail about Shinji’s words to Asuka.Zictor23 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The finer points of the plot summary

Rather than continue this conversation in the edit summaries, I thought I'd better use the Talk page, since that's what it's for. This stuff isn't a big deal - I just want to discuss it because I'm a writer and find this stuff interesting. Anyway...

I gotta confess I am baffled by the objection to "Shinji is horrified to see the mass-produced units carrying the mutilated remains of Unit 02." I don't see what "to his horror" improves about it, and it means we then have to use a stronger verb to follow to get it to scan, as in the current wording: "To his horror, Shinji discovers the mass-produced units carrying the mutilated remains of Unit 02." This doesn't really work, because Shinji doesn't really discover the units. It's not like he was searching for them in a closet. The obvious verb here, to me, is see. What's wrong with it?

"Determined to have Shinji defend NERV, Misato brings Shinji to Unit 01's bay doors, but is mortally wounded in the process. Misato implores Shinji to pilot Unit 01, kisses him, and forces him into the elevator." It seems to me that it's important to say that she does all this does before she dies, as my edit did ("Before she dies..."). Misato's death is an important plot point, and without mentioning that she dies, we are only left with the information that she is "mortally wounded" - so when does she die?

So if we go with my version, we have to remove "mortally wounded", because then we say that she dies twice ("mortally wounded" + "before she dies"). We are therefore also obliged to say why she dies, because otherwise it's mysterious. "Determined to have Shinji defend NERV, Misato brings Shinji to Unit 01's bay doors, but is shot by soldiers. Before she dies, she implores Shinji to pilot Unit 01, kisses him, and forces him into the elevator."

Finally:

"giant cyborgs designed to fight hostile supernatural entities called angels". The construction "Called <something>" just doesn't sound encyclopaedic to me. To take a crude example, we wouldn't write, on Wikipedia, "Young cats, called kittens, are..." Apart from adding an unnecessary word, it would sound like we were writing for a young audience, sort of patronising. Instead we'd write "Kittens, young cats, are..." (or whatever). Do you see what I mean?

Sorry, that's all quite convoluted, but hopefully I made some sort of sense... Popcornduff (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. So given that, I think the first sentence regarding Shinji's horror should be rewritten as "From the cockpit, Shinji witnesses the mass-produced units carrying the mutilated remains of Unit 02, much to his horror" or use this recent edit, which I also have no objections to.

Regarding Misato getting shot by soldiers, it might not be necessary to describe the means of how she dies as much as the death of Misato, which is important to the plot. But, if we should change the sentence to, "Determined to have Shinji defend NERV, Misato brings Shinji to Unit 01's bay doors, but is mortally wounded in the process. After a brief talk with Shinji, she kisses him, pushes him into the elevator and dies," that could leave some aspects of it out like her imploring him to pilot the unit. I don't want to leave anything ambiguous when editing the plot. Any other objections or proposals on how we should reword these? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's possible to have our cake and eat it in this situation. It's not critical to explain how she dies, but "is shot by soldiers" uses about as many characters as "is mortally wounded" and actually contains more information (because we have to say she dies in the next sentence anyway). What's the downside? Popcornduff (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)