Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neon Genesis Evangelion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 28 days

Neon Genesis Evangelion has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 24, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 22, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Anime and manga: Evangelion High‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Evangelion work group.

Science Fiction High‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of episode iterations & inclusion in primary release campaigns

Is there any reason for this section and the long table? I don't know if it would be of interest to casual readers of the article. If anything, only hardcore fans would be interested in something like that and this is not the place for that, not to mention that it looks like pure WP:ORIGINAL. - Xexerss (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to a more appropriate spot in the "List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes" page now since, as you say, it's beyond summary-level info and that's a page with e.g. more in-depth info on translation of titles. Since e.g. there was not even any mention of the parity between 21'-24' and 25'-26' before this suggests something needed improving at least and this is the most diplomatic solution I could find; a pictorial solution like a table is better than body text when talking about lots of different versions with very similar titles in succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbroseCadwell (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Have we all forgotten what site we're on? This is an English article on the English Wikipedia. Cited sources need to (a) meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, (b) be written in English, and (c) be something that we can actually confirm the existence of. This means that you need to name a book, magazine issue, etc. that a person can buy or a website that a person can browse. If I type "ISBN 4-8074-9718-9" into a search engine and I only get three results, two of which are Wikipedia pages about Evangelion and the third of which is written in Spanish, then "ISBN 4-8074-9718-9" is not a valid source. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The success of the series led to a rebirth of the anime industry

What exactly is this supposed to mean and what is the source for that statement? The anime industry in Japan was doing just fine before NGE was released. 185.68.78.153 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're mentioned and it's all in the article.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Link from an unlinked source in the article

The 53rd Source, "Interview with Hideaki Anno" is missing a link for it's Source.

I searched through this scientific paper and found it has a full and acessible source for the 53rd source of this wikipedia article.

The link for the interview is here: https://gwern.net/doc/anime/eva/1996-newtype-anno-interview

Can someone put the link in there for me? I don't remember how to format quotations in wikipedia and I think it hinders the article and the research from here to lack the link to that. NuloSois (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the unreliable sources tag

Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]