Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
EVA	This article is supported by the Evangelion work group.

Contents 1 Lists 2 Production information 3 Video Release 4 united states release date

[edit] Lists

In case anyone's wondering, I removed the two crufty lists per WP:NOT#PLOT. Reinis^talk 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I temporarily replaced it, tagged it, and now notify the Evangelion workgroup about the problem.--GunnarRene 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in that list with any real world significance, and there is no point in tagging it with {{list to prose}}, because it wouldn't merit inclusion even if it was rewritten. Reinis^talk 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So there should be absolutely no information about the plot and any differences with the original, and no information about reviews, ticket sales and awards? --GunnarRene 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the empty sections. They're not stubs, just like an empty article with a stub template wouldn't be a stub.

The article should include a plot section, but one that would follow the guidelines. The changes between the movies aren't needed, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an accumulation of random information. Reinis^talk 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NOW ERASE HIS IMDB SOURCE YOU FAGS!

If that is how you want it to work, I suggest you update the stub section and section help/doc pages on meta to your liking. Differences are encyclopedic indeed, but of course not on the level of detail that the list was. Significant differences, and a summary of differences is encyclopedic - trivial differences are not. --GunnarRene 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether the differences are encyclopedic is contingent on real world relevance, not on your opinion about their significance. As for the Meta help, it's so poorly written, I'm not even sure what it says. In any case, it doesn't make much sense to "expand" an empty section, so I don't think that it's the intended use, and the template docs support this, because they talk about short, not empty, sections. Reinis^talk 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The meta says "empty" sections. --GunnarRene 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the word "empty" is mentioned there. So? Reinis^talk 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Which means that the template is meant for empty sections (but not JUST empty sections). --GunnarRene 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just the word being there doesn't mean that, no. Reinis^talk 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Also check out the transclusions on "what links here" and watch the log of new articles being created. You will see this happening a lot. --GunnarRene 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should establish consensus for such a change first, but a bit of boldness is OK. --GunnarRene 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For what change? Reinis^talk 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A new rule that stubsections can't be empty. --GunnarRene 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just common sense that you can't expand something that doesn't exist. If it was meant for empty sections, it would say "create". If an article is non-existent, it also doesn't say that you should expand it. Reinis^talk 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between an empty article and an empty section. Empty sections establish an article structure, and it's an often-used working process to make empty sections from skeletons and article templates. That is why I used a template on your talk page, since you either seemed to have removed the section in error or because you're unfamiliar with this. --GunnarRene 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The template you added didn't say any of this, but instead warned me about removing "content" and welcomed me to Wikipedia. I already got my welcoming template back in '05, and there was no content in the section headline, so I don't think you can justify giving it. I also don't think that relying on an obscure point in the Meta docs helps you, since having empty sections with a template saying "This short section requires expansion." should need no comments. It's just stupid. Reinis^talk 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The section header and its location is content. Also you indiscriminantly removed a list and a list header of both trivial and non-trivial information, which was also content.

This movie came out less than a week ago. In the future please either fix stuff yourself or bring it to the attention of other editors and allow some time for things to be improved.

If you think most of your fellow editors are stupid, perhaps you'd like to work on something else.--GunnarRene 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not content, because it didn't have any substantive information, and if you care to point out what exactly was "non-trivial" in the list (or even the header, according to you), please do. Also, if you feel that you've given me a reason to think that you're stupid, even though I haven't said that, there's not much that I can do. It's your own opinion. Reinis^talk 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It had content - watch as the section now has content condensed from the list - unless you go and blank the section again.

It was you who said that all those people who made the template, the help page, and that use it to create article skeletons were "stupid", not me. --GunnarRene 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the list to have been trivial. It was perhaps too lengthy and may have been better presented in prose (as previously suggested), but it was decent content. So long as Wikipedia contains pages regarding anime and movies, a summary of the differences between a 'series remake' movie and the original series strikes me as encyclopedic information that many users will find worthwhile.

As for the issue regarding the empty stub sections, why not add a sentence of content to each. That way a skeleton structure for the article could be provided without controversy. 117.102.148.72 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Being that this a remake, a list of changes from the original seems appropriate and should be (perhaps more succinctly) reinstated. 58.104.235.5 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production information

Hi. To me, it makes the most sense to keep information about the production in the Rebuild of Evangelion article, and reference it from that. There is just one problem with that, and that is the name of the article itself, as "Rebuild of Evangelion" is the name that Newtype gave its feature on the movies. Then again, it's not necessarily the "official" name that is used here on Wikipedia, but the most commonly recognized one. Thoughts? --GunnarRene 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Having separate articles for each movie is not necessary and it can all be contained in the single Rebuild article, which is like you said the most commonly recognized and most suitable name.Fox816 23:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said "information about the production". By that I meant "making-of" info. But I guess what you suggest could work too. It all depends on article size. --GunnarRene 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Release

Anyone knows when it's gonna be released in home video in Japan? It's been 3 months since the premiere. --T0rek 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

4/25/08 according to amazon.co.jp today.

203.218.158.150 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bought the 1.01 release from Japan today. The first disc is the movie release. The second disc contains "Explanation of Evangelion 1.01", which as far as I can tell contains the movie release + intermittent subtext overlays of descriptions of important design names / personnels. It also contain some making of scenes and PV of the 1.0 movie release.

mmm, still no news about a Blu-Ray release? --T0rek (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Eddypoon (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the point of the film strip included with the limited edition release is that it is cut from the actual reel used at the premier screening? If so, this detail should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.222.155 (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] united states release date

someone posted an unverified release date and publisher and i couldnt find any confirmation of it anywhere, so i removed it. if anyone finds an appropriate citation, feel free to revert. DrIdiot (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

again, the release date was added with a citation to imdb. however, as IMDB is often wrong about release dates, and i cannot find a similar release date elsewhere, i have deleted the paragraph. DrIdiot (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says the release date for America is 22 February 2008 , but until an offical release date is anounced (or until it is released) it is best not to post any date. I agree with you DrIdiot that IMBD is often wrong about release dates.I am interested in when it will come out in English, I hope soon. - Prede (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be re-dubbed, and it is still unreleased in some parts of Asia. We might be looking at a 2009 release in the States.--Surfaced (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If it has a 2009 release it may just be released with eva 2.0 as well in english eh? I can't wait until it comes out in english I wanna see it! - Prede (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)