Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion

Turning This Page Into A Full-Fledged Article

I would like this article to not be considered a stub anymore! However, I'm a new editor and I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done for that to happen. Also, in terms of my contributions to the page itself, while I'm an older anime fan, I'm a baby in terms of EVA fandom, and I'd love for someone who was actually around for the VHS fansubs and knows more about that era to add to this page, since mostly I'm just exercising my research skills here!--NinthFeather NinthFeather (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's definitely not a stub anymore, especially considering what a lot of the other anime fandoms look like. You can use Template:ExpandArticle for sections you want more information on but don't have enough personal experience to add to. You could make a VHS fansubs section and put the ExpandArticle template under that, or you could put the expand article template at the top of then fandom section and explain what parts you think need attention.

As for further expanding the article, you could look at well-developed fandom pages (like Undertale or Blake's 7, maybe) and see if they have any sections that you think NGE could use. I'd suggest sections for different kings of fanworks and a Examples Wanted template at least. I'd also be very interested in information about "The Evangelion fandom includes a wide range of demographics...", the ship wars, and any influential meta. Maybe you could pull some quotes?

Also, thanks for your really excellent additions! Excited to have you on board. - Hoopla (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Shipping Discussion

Hi, I've returned briefly to do some editing but also to ask that future editors try their best to keep their ship biases out of the article. This is a discussion of the fandom as a whole, so while it's reasonable to include information about how popular various ships are and how their popularity has waxed and waned over time, giving undue attention to specific ships is not helpful. Neither is making statements about the popularity of specific ships that you can't back up with sources, or attempting to establish a ship as canon. This is a wiki focused on fandom, so the canonicity of a ship is only relevant when it influences fandom trends. Thanks everyone! NinthFeather

Hello. I have looked at the changes and while I'm fine with some of them and the page is also more organized and readable, there are some I can't agree with. You claim too much focus on shipping but I'm afraid much of the changes show very little knowledge of some topics. Certainly, this being a fan wiki, not everything is going to be completely credible and some of it will be essentially hearsay, but whereas many claims could be verified before, replacing them with much more flawed sources like that awful Reddit post doesn't help much either, as they are as authoritative as what is written here. Certainly many fans believe some things to be the case if they haven't looked deeper into the original sources or outside their own bubbles, Eva fandom is riddled with myths and misconceptions - this warrants some notice too. For instance, I previously mentioned the polling resutls on Newtype magazine, and beforehand this mentioned Asuka, Rei, Kaworu and Shinji, yet strangely enough Asuka and Rei were removed despite being demonstrably more popular. I don't quite see how removing some pretty relevant facts about popularity on separate sphere helps either. Some inconsistencies like naming schemes also shouldn't be there, etc. The parts involving Mari also probably need to be mostly redone. I'll do more later and note my qualms here on the talk page. Thank you for your contributions regardless. F3f3

Hi, I have no idea which reddit article you're referring to, as I referenced several. Also, while I appreciate your dedication to well-cited articles, your previous iteration showed a problematic bias towards AsuShin (please see the wiki's Plural Point of View policy for further detail). Your edits also had issues with focusing on the canon, rather than the fandom, which is appropriate on EvaWiki but not on Fanlore. The canon and its "correct" (which is in itself fallacious, unless you have a direct wire to Anno Hideki's brain) interpretation is only relevant if it is one that influenced fannish culture, and you can prove that this is the case. Finally, your sources were heavily biased towards the original series and summarily ignored Rebuild and its fannish response, to say nothing of the games and manga. I look forward to additions to the article that improve its quality, particularly corrections to inconsistencies in naming or perspectives that may not have been properly represented, but do not try to justify skewing this article in favor of a specific slice of fandom by saying the sources you have are more empirical. Thank you. NinthFeather (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No idea if you'll be back, but if you feel the need to edit this article again, please try not to put information that is extraneous to the citations themselves in the References section. Noting a page is in a non-English language or was translated from one is helpful; the circumstances of the translation is not. Also the editorial notes appended to certain sections were unsupported personal opinion, which has its place on the wiki but generally not outside of quotations. Thank you! NinthFeather (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. Okay, so I have made a major re-write again. I have almost doubled the amount of sources, and attempted to make the existing text shorter and more concise, much of it was outdated as it dated back to 2019 and didn't reflect things after the new film. Article length has been increased again, but I think it's far more readable than before. I was referring to this reddit post, and while I understand that much of this can't be necessarily sourced, I am still wary of using reddit as a source overall since effectively it's just one person relating their experiences, which has as much weight as you or I saying it. Either way, I find that post rather inaccurate and incomplete so I chose to remove it entirely, but I left the other ones. A lot of other things could be supported to a larger degree and I had already noted a lot of points were repeated, and this was already something I had on the back of my mind for a while.

I understand this wiki has a different, fannish focus, but the reason I bring some of the canon sources, and there are many of those, is because they often have been received in the fandom and made a fannish impact, as people often discuss every word Anno says. The other wiki article on the Netflix translation wasn't because of it being in Japanese - it wasn't, it's relevant because it also includes background info on the controversy, and I also linked it to the 3.0 translation differences, which is linked to it and one of the examples of sub/dub drama. As for weigh, while I understand it may come off that way I'm not trying to make the article partial, but I think that can't really be helped when the sources already tend that way when it comes to shipping trends and I haven't tried to focus exclusively on canon, and for the most part the original series is the most important part of the franchise and the fandom so that has to be reflected. On the contrary, I had already added a bunch of sources talking about them, some were removed before, and I tried getting some more again, but because they're not talked about as much there just aren't that many. I added some more info on minor ships like Asumari and Misakaji too which I missed.

I took your advice that the references were quite wordy and opinatory, so I trimmed them down considerably and focused on giving context to data to better support the main text. Some things though I felt were worth of notice, like the existance of OCs, debate around canonicity, etc, so I instead used a References template to make a separate Notes section so it wouldn't interfere with readability too much, as is allowed in the MOS of Wikipedia and other wikis. I particularly added a lot of Pixiv pages since they help support a lot of info. The post-3.0+1.0 section I wrote again entirely, and the Reddit post was completely ignorant of the debate around the statements and controversies like harassment.

I am glad you are willing to improve the article as well and I appreciate your reorganizing of it also. I hope you like the changes I've made but please don't refrain from making your own. Thank you. F3f3 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

F3f3, please sign your talk page messages. If you're unsure how to do so, use four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. NinthFeather, please use indent formatting (colon or multiple colons before your paragraphs) for replies. These practices make discussions easier to read and helps people recognize who is saying what. I've gone ahead and added usernames to messages missing a signature and added some indenting, so just a reminder for the future. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

F3f3 You have once again added a few useful factoids and a massive quantity of bias regarding what Evangelion fandom looks like and where it occurs. Despite your personal experiences, EvaGeeks and the waifu wars do not comprise the entirety of Evangelion fandom experiences and pretending otherwise by using sources explicitly focused on those areas is disingenuous at best. Also if I have to delete one more discussion of the "worthy of your grace" debate that violates the Plural Point of View policy I will have little choice other than to submit a moderation ticket regarding the issue. Finally, when citing sources please remember to add the name of the website the information came from, the name of the author (if known), and the approximate posting date. Doing otherwise makes it much harder for later editors to evaluate your work. Thank you! NinthFeather (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)