Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Overview

Rather than just a comparison to the original series, it is important to cover an overview of the Manga as its own separate entity. Also it current article only talks about differences to the original series, it should be described as its own entity with character descriptions. comment added by Stextc (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release

The release section is not required. It should be integrated in with the Bibliography. Having it in a table would make it more readable.

US release

The release date for the USA is in error. I* was able to purchase the first volume on April 25.

  • Whoever I am. This was in the chain bookstore "Books-a-Million" in Florida.

In response to previous, I have checked with Amazon, and it lists publish/release date as May 5, 2006.

The third volume has already been released as of November 14-random anonymous person.

Amazon.com now has American release dates for Vols. 5 and 6 listed, as June 20th and September 19th, respectively... dunno if that should be put in the article. -DiRF

The Covers

Are the covers portrayed in the article accurate? The cover given for volume 1 appears to have a number 3 (and is, indeed, identical with the cover of volume 3), whereas the cover in the infobox has a 1. Theelf29 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. Don't know what I was thinking. --
17 February 2007
(GMT)

Do we really need the covers? Their formatting stretches out that section of the article, and honestly, I don't think they're all that necessary. If people want to see them badly enough, they can go to Amazon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additional covers do not add much to the article. It also violates

WP:NFCC
One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.148.111 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What of NFCC does it violate? Those images are being used in at least one article - this one. --
25 October 2007
(GMT)

Sorry it shouldn't be the One-Article minimum. The reason is : 3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.

There is no real need for all 3 covers. As stated the really don't add anything to the article. This is not free content and as such 1 cover is enough to illustrate the series. Gwern, please post discussion here. I would like to get agreement with yourself prior to removal of the images. Stextc 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

I'm confused, because in the genre box, it says BOTH shoujo and shounen. Does that mean it for boys and girls or a simple mistake?

anymore?

does anyone know for sure that the run time of the manga ended at 2005? arttic00 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

I'm removing the {{

Refimprove
}} tag because at least the basic publication info is cited now. As a matter of improvement, it would be better to source the publication dates to the various print editions themselves (or failing that the respective publishers' websites), but ANN is good enough for a Start-class article.

In order to be rated any higher, however, much more referencing needs to be done -- specifically, all statements about the differences between the two incarnations of a character (original and Angelic Days) need to be cited to a

WP:WAF
, you can use the primary source as a source for bare plot, but not for anything that requires interpretation.

Also, to be rated any higher, the article needs at least the stub of a Production section; for a description of what goes in there, see

WP:MOS-AM. Given the number of languages this has been licensed in, I'd also like to see more information about the Reception of the series in other countries, but that's more important for reaching GA. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

this article is about a spin off version of The original series. therefore, not canon. Wikipedia highly discourages detailed information about non-canon series so we dont need any more ddetail. Production would usually fall in anime, and reception is usually for main series. To be honest, i believe this shouldnt even be an article, since it's not canon.

talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The production and reception of Angelic Days would be appropriate topics for this article. Regarding if it should have its own article, questions of canonicity or quality don't come into the equation, if there are sufficient reliable sources to satisfy the
general notability guidelines (which there are). --Malkinann (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You base your opinion merely on the general notability guideline. Whether it's cannon or not, is important when it come articles about a series.
talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
He is perfectly right in refering to the general notability guideline. Last time I checked, inclusion criteria are still decided by Wikipedia (as a community establishing its own rules) and not by individual contributors who would like to get rid of what they don't like. Canonicity is not a valid criterion for inclusion/exclusion on WP, period.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canonocity IS mentioned in one the WP, especially towards manga series and anime. still, general notability guideline only allows separation. it does not enforce it. Point of view, this is a minor series involving the main series. and i don't get rid of what i don't like, i get rid of what is not needed. i never putting "what i like" in any of this. I"m tired of these false accusations.
talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Also spin off series and doujinshi should be avoided but it's not an official rule. Still it would be nice to follow this.but then again, i doubt anyone will want to follow this considering this is leaning towards fansites.
talk) 17:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No you're wrong, canonicity is NOT mentionned as one of the notability criteria, even for the
books notability guideline
must be used, and this guideline does NOT include "canonicity". So no, articles are not going to be evaluated according to unapproved criteria only suiting individual contributors not liking this or that.
Also, "canonicity" means nothing. There is not even a clear cut definition. Most of the time, fans themselves have labelled canon/non-canon what they like or not. This whole notion mostly relies on forum talks, sometimes even the authors don't care about that. Then, concerning WP, "canonicity", besides being a completlely pov-oriented notion, is only an indication on the storyline and the author. A story deemed "non canon" is still professionally published and can perfectly achieve notability through popularity, reviews, analyses or awards. "Canonicity" has nothing to do with notability. The same with spin-offs.
For dojinshi, if they meet the notability guidelines, then they deserve their own article. This has nothing to do with being a "fansite", if a works meets the notability guidelines, there is no reason to exclude it. If it's not the case, then it's likely to be removed. That's all. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT was mentioned, I'll look for it. Anyways, notable sources doesn't mean "Deserves" separate article, that only means it's "allowed" to have one. if you think like that then everything that has 3 reviews of a specific thing will obtain separate articles. You cannot base ever article merely on GNG. there's more to it.

Also Canonicity is very easy to tell.

talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The notability guidelines were established precisely in order to determine what can have an article and what can't. If a subject passes the notability guideline, then it will have its own article.
But please tell me what would be the other criteria..."Canonicity" ? Individual contributors' opinion ?
What would be your reason for denying an article to a (potential) notable subject ? Just because you want to merge everything ? But why exactly ? Not that I'm against merging, but you seem to have proposed every Eva-related article for merging, even long and important ones like End of Evangelion, and you've never clearly stated your motivations.
If the subjects pass the notability guideline, you would need a very strong reason for wanting to merge it to something else. Even in a case of bad article, rewritting it seems more appropriate than merging. That previous contributors didn't do good or long enough doesn't mean the subject itself is not good.
If you want to convince people here of the necessity of merging, then you'll have to find stronger reasons than "it's not because something is notable that it deserves its own article" (which is highly debatable. The notability guidelines were specifically established to determine which subject deserves its own article. If even notable subjects cannot have their own articles, then I don't know what could have an article on WP).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note... Indeed? What's canon in the Eva franchise? I'll grant it's very easy to tell what's copyrighted or licensed legally, but that's not important. Is the TV series canon? If so, which version? Broadcast? Director's edit? Is Sadamoto's manga which came out before the TV series canon? Is EoE canon despite apparently contradicting on multiple points the TV ending? Which of the movie versions, in general? What of the deleted but scripted scenes? Or the early drafts for TV and movies? How about the Red Cross book, or the Secret Information? Where does Rebuild fit in? Or the long-promised live-action movie? Are books like 2015: The Last Year of Ryoji Kaji canon? When Anno says Misato didn't kill Kaji, is that then canon?
Eva isn't Western. It's not like
Star Wars
. There is no nice neat G/T/C/S/N ranking of materials, no full-time employee maintaining a database, retconning & keeping things consistent and laying down the law about what did & didn't happen, what's in which level of canon.
It's a cultural difference; they don't care as much about canonicity. There's licensed, and there's unlicensed. We ignore the latter unless they have massive notability, and we cover the former as they meet our usual guidelines. Canonicity doesn't enter into it because it's often just plain inapplicable. --
2 October 2009
(GMT)

Rebuild is a whole new version of NGE, a summary of the series with a new ending, of course this is cannon. It holds the same plot, the ending can be different, but the story will relate to it. TV series of course is cannon since it was the original. Deleted and scripted scenes shall stay non canon until they are revealed in the actual movie/anime. as for the books, i don't know whether those are canon, if Anno was some-what involved, then yes, It is canon. If it's just a light novel, then it would have to be no.

Anyways....There are far too many articles wit the same POV. Merging isn't a "bad" idea. It's just an idea no one wants. Summary style could fit in some of these areas aswell by removing quotes and summarizze the ideas.

but enough about that, this article already meets GNG, once it meets the criteria than it no longer needs more updating. It's a matter of wanting to or not. But the evangelion work group would want all the articles to meet high standards. I would have to say it's impossible unless we merged a few of them together. but of course, no one will take that statement seriously. This article has met GNG, no 'need' for more

talk) 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Your definition of the so-called canon of Eva is totally inconsistent. Which proves my point about "canonicity" being an unsubstanciated fandom concept (besides NOT being included in the official WP criteria).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's fairly simple, if it's a spin off that acts as some alternate reality, than it's jsut non-canon, same plot and secret infomraitno revealed about the story is canon.

Canon isn't fandom,

It's fairly simple. If a series falls under the same Universe, then it is canon, if not then it's not canon. Angelic Days is based off the alternative universe of NGE, only very different than originally shown. Instead of a world where Evas don't exist, they mixed the idea of that world with the universe already given, therefore not canon because it has no effect to the real universe. Adaptations are always canon, the series might have some differences but they will always be canon unless having an ending twist or completely changed a certain piece of terminology. So the Rebuild of evangelion series and Manga adaptation are still canon. Gakuen Datenroku is not canon, it falls in a completely different universe than the ones shown. In fact it doesn't even have a reference which might be challenged for deletion. The games are almost canon but do not fall witihn the timeline of NGE, more like an alternative timeline.

canonicity helps the article, if it didn't we would see a whole mess of trivial information that talks about other appearances other than the series. that kind of information is trivial. Parody appearances or a some lyrics based off a band are completely trivial.

talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

For the purposes of Angelic Days "being an article", canon does not apply - instead, the availability of
notability guidelines does. (Which Angelic Days has). Discussing what is canon in NGE does not help improve the articles, and expressing your views on Angelic Days' worth may not fit in with the talk page guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Your decisions seem pretty ad hoc. Consider the complicated canon system at EvaGeeks (which for all intents and purposes may as well be considered the representative of English-speaking Eva fans): http://wiki.evageeks.org/Theory_and_Analysis:What_Is_Canon%3F
They put Rebuild into an entirely separate continuity, and don't simply say it's canon. (And how does it make sense to say TV/movies/manga/Rebuild are canon when that implies contradictions, anyway?) --
7 October 2009
(GMT)

i'm saying that we don't really need to add more to this article. I meant to say that canon plays a role in the articles. A pretty moderate role.

talk) 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

"canonicity" doesn't play a role and cannot do so since it doesn't even exists. "Canonicity" is a subjective point of view without any reliable secondary source backing it up. That's all.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's your opinion.

talk) 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG. "canonicity" doesn't appear anywhere. This discussion is over.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

that logic is completely wrong....

talk) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

No it's not, because it's based on the existing rules of Wikipedia. Your logic is wrong, because it goes against the established rules.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you really don't think it through....you just say it and claim everything in general. It's not "against" rules.

talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes it is against the rules. The rules, notably
WP:NOR forbid users to make claims that are not sourced. Making a claim on the canonicty of a work, in absence of any reliable source, is original research. And trying to delete an article, on the basis of canonicity, a concept that is original research and not included in any notability guideline, means going against the rules. Individual contributors cannot make up their own notability criteria. These criteria are decided by the community, and no user is allowed to make such a decision by himself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


you clearly havent been reading....you jsut spout but you dont read...

1)i didn't say this should be deleted, just that it has no need for further improvement. I mentioned Doujinshi has to be removed, there is hardly ever any notable sources for those and it's really not part of NGE franchise 2)i said it plays "some" role in making articles, not all of them. for example, let's say they made a parody of NGE? If it has enough notable sources, are we going to make a separate article? The Evangelion wikiproject tends to believe that if there's enough sources then it "deserves" and "needs" to be split. But will we make a article purely on a parody? i would say no, what about other appearances? little things like " a pop star made a song suing a line from End of Evangelion". clearly not part of the series, so why mention it? that's where some canon falls into place.

talk) 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Until this article becomes
the writing about fiction manual of style. --Malkinann (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Considering the author description of the manga, i doubt there was any production. only one person contributed to the manga so we wont find much info on that. As for reception, we probably will find one or two considering how it's not so famous. we dont really need to add more just to make it perfect.

talk) 16:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

How do you know there is no production information? Have you read the manga? I think it would depend on how long any afterwords are at the back. We have already found three reviews which are listed in the external links section for reception. I disagree with you that 'we dont really need to add more just to make it perfect'. In the
editing policy, it states that the editing process guides articles to greater levels of quality over time, which includes the hypothetical 'perfection'. I believe that to keep talking Angelic Days down, as you have been doing by continuously expressing your views on Angelic Days' canonicity and worth, does not encourage people to work on the article and stymies the editing process. Please use the article's talk page to talk about the article, not about the subject of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

yes i have read the manga, but that's really not what i'm trying to say. the authors note are pretty much explaining the production of the manga. but i doubt there will be any source giving more detail than the author. production is usuallly for the original work. it's hard to find production on a small spin off. it's not that wide of information, but i suppose the notes count as production. Do we site the manga or find a source? As for reception, i was excluding the reviews the article already has. and what i meant to say is, we don't need to add more to make it perfect. there are other methods. and in the last part, you just dropped the ball. that subject was brought over by folken the fanel when it was suppose to be dropped, don't do the same as him.

talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you own the manga? The production of other kinds of Evangelion media does not matter here. The production of Angelic Days would be a valid topic to add to this article, per
WP:WAF. Authors' notes and afterwords included in the manga are valid sources of information for the production of Angelic Days, and using those notes would improve the article, giving it more real-world perspective. It doesn't matter if there's not a lot of production information on Angelic Days, just that the article reflects existing production information. Why be so negative? Try to look at the glass as being half-full. ;-) What are these 'other methods' that can be used to make the article better? I can't follow what you're trying to say about 'other methods'. I find you saying repeatedly that this article doesn't need improvement to be disruptive, especially as you said you didn't believe Angelic Days needed its own article, despite it meeting the GNGs. If you feel that the article doesn't need improvement, why say so repeatedly on the talk page? The usual thing to do when an article doesn't need much improvement, is not to comment at all, or to comment thanking the editors for making such a great article. Until this article is the perfect article, (a hypothetical state towards which each article and editor should strive) the article could probably use improvement and more information. The editing process will bring the article closer to being perfect - but you being so negative about the article and Angelic Days at every turn does not make me want to work on the article. Please stop being so negative - after all, Wikipedia is just a hobby. ;-) --Malkinann (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

you dropped the ball once again. as simple as my comments, are you seem to not move on.

yes you can follow, you just frustrated. other methods, as in other ways besides adding more information, like editing the plot more, listing differences and themes seem to be the main error in these evangelion articles. Instead give synopsis. You can use the authors notes if you want. i can be negative if i feel like it, but that's the least of your concern since the negative appears to go away, you just wont let it go.

talk) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Negativity is
writing about fiction guidelines, which encourages reception and other out of universe information. I don't understand the 'other methods' you are proposing to improve the article, as you are not making reference to any wiki guidelines and are not explaining yourself thoroughly. You also haven't tried to edit the article yourself, so I can't even glean from your edits what your intention might be. Please explain yourself thoroughly, and back it up with edits to the article, and then the normal editing process can resume. Do you own any of Angelic Days? --Malkinann (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

yes i own 3 mangas of it. but that's not important, i don't see why you ask, you act as if your so sure. negative? not uncivil. negative sometimes helps article, finding flaws, see more mistakes than usual, but that's not really the point. Uncivil would be like i would be provoking you, me focusing on you more on the conversation (which really right now is the other way around, your focusing to much on me more than what I'm trying to say). non canon and spin off was dropped. again you drop it. one more word of it and I'll simply ignore it.

and other methods to improve the article. as in other ways to fix the article other than adding more information. how is that so hard? is there any other way of improving articles other than adding more sources and information? i don't see how difficult this is for you to comprehend, but apparently it is. There are more ways to fixing and/or improving an article, not all of them say "you have to add more sources, more information". "adding more" isn't the only thing that needs to be done on the article. the plot needs to be reworked, the characters aswell, then after all that we can add production. And since i cant find anything else to improve it, In my opinion, that would be all we need.

talk) 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Adding sources and information is not the only way to improve an article, but I think it's the most important way to help this one. More sources (like author's notes and reception) would help to redress the balance in the article between real-world information and in-universe information. At the moment, the article has much more in-universe information and has little on the real-world aspects of the work. Prose can always be improved, but without real-world information, the article isn't very interesting to a wider audience than fans. As Wikipedia must write to a wider audience than fans, the article needs more real-world information. As you own three volumes of the manga, (vols 1-3?) it would be deeply helpful if you could please take a look in the back of your copies at the author's notes and add the relevant parts to the article. Fullmetal_Alchemist#Production could give you some ideas on what is considered important information to add from author's notes. The external links could also be worked into a "Reception" section, which is considered desirable by the anime-manga manual of style, which specifically recommends a reception section, and more generally by the writing about fiction manual of style, which recommends information be added about the critical reception. --Malkinann (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

try to find references within the external links and maybe we could be able to rework it into the article. Possibly using notes from the author by simply quoting him in references is good. I will try to find critical reception though it will be difficult for this particular manga. if it appears to be ranked at any manga convention or awards ceremony then it would be able to found in less than a week. i suggest improving the plot should be a major priority right now though. I always take a look at it and have trouble re-editing the article

talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding the canon of Angelic Days

I recently learnt about Angelic Days. To me, it sounds really great. However, I was just wondering that, because Angelic Days is based on the Instrumentality sequence from the final episode of Eva, does that mean it didn't actually happen, or is it just set in an alternate universe? It would be a terrible shame if it were the former.

zictor23 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012(UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion:_Angelic_Days&oldid=1201455899"