text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus in Kashmir

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - redirected

At best a minority view, more likely just plain nonsense or a hoax. --MarkSweep 18:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Tinfoil hat stuff. Advertising/spam/page rank boosting.  Geogre 19:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I actually know from personal experience that there are people who hold this view, and religious views always deserve proper articles, unless they are utterly idiosyncratic. Of course, it needs massive cleanup and should be moved. Everyking 23:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it gets cleaned up and doesn't proselytize and isn't a linkfarm, then I'll change my vote. More importantly, if an NPOV section locates this belief where it is -- on the far fringe -- that will be better.  There are people who believe all sorts of things, from the Albigensians having Jesus's bones to various neo-Gnostics saying that today is the year 50 AD, but if we report them, we don't report them as It's the year 50 AD or The Catholic Crusade against Jesus in France, and we don't lace them with 8 links.  This is one of those things where I don't trust anyone to clean it up after VfD and think it surely be deleted unless it's cleaned nearly to perfection before VfD ends. Geogre 23:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd keep it. This is a matter of interest for some and belief for others. There is at least one growing sect that has material in their canons that supports ascribes to this belief. See: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. While that article needs NPOV'ing, it's list of their beliefs is accurate. The Ahmadis, while not 10% of all Muslims as the article claims, are not a small group that you can dismiss as a "tin foil" cult. Also, this is a strain that runs through several belief systems in the syncretist mix that exists in Kashmir. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:24, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's weird, but so are lots of religions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * cleanup --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as is. If it gets cleaned up, then I may change my vote. BTW, the page was moved to Jesus in Kashmir and now the link to this section doesn't work. DCEdwards1966 06:19, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've now (hopefully!) fixed the link. --G Rutter 09:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There is already an article on this: Yuza Asif Ben Standeven 08:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect to Yuza Asif, which contains much of the same info, but NPOVed. --G Rutter 09:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as is. With possiblility of REDIRECT to Yuza Asif. --Benefros 05:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * KeepThis is a great archeological and cultural find. What is wrong in scientifically considering the situation for examination.Why is it people blindly reject what is not comfortable to them. Those who feel that it needs to be cleaned up are always welcome to correct the details in wikipedia. Those who object please explain where Jesus went from the age of 12 to 29. Also this article does not talk for or against any faith. Just because Jesus came to india does it mean that he is denigrated ? [unsigned:User:203.197.157.1]
 * You should be aware that unsigned votes (that is, comments made by anyone without an established user account) are steeply discounted during discussions on this page. Please log in and sign your comments (which you can do by typing  .  Rossami (talk)
 * Redirect. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep and redirect to "Yuza Asif". Most views are "minority views". This is absolutely not a reason for deletion.Dr Zen 01:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to, but do not merge with, Yuza Asif, where the issue is discussed in a sane and NPOV manner. Gamaliel 01:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect, do not merge. Fire Star 01:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Throw content away, redirect to Yuza Asif. [[User:Dbachmann|dab ( T ) ]] 08:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. utcursch 11:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -- 216.20.234.60 23:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect w/o merging to Yuza Asif. Postdlf 05:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Indian Antarctic Programme

The Indian Antarctic Programme is a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional programme under the control of the National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India. It was initiated in 1981 with the first Indian expedition to Antarctica. The programme gained global acceptance with India's signing of the Antarctic Treaty and subsequent construction of the Dakshin Gangotri Antarctic research base in 1983, superseded by the Maitri base from 1989. The newest base commissioned in 2012 is Bharati, constructed out of 134 shipping containers. Under the programme, atmospheric, biological, earth, chemical, and medical sciences are studied by India, which has carried out 40 scientific expeditions to the Antarctic.

History
The origin of the Indian missions to the Antarctic are traced to the joint Indian Space Research Organisation – Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia agreements, which led to Indians, such as Dr. Paramjit Singh Sehra, joining the 17th Soviet Antarctic expedition of 1971–1973.

India officially acceded to the Antarctic Treaty System on 1 August 1983. On 12 September 1983, the country became the fifteenth Consultative Member of the Antarctic Treaty.

Organization
The National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research—a research and development body functioning under the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India—controls the Indian Antarctic Programme. The NCPOR and the Department of Ocean Development select the members for India's Antarctic expeditions. After medical tests and subsequent acclimatisation training at the Himalayas, these selected members are also trained in survival, environment ethics, firefighting and operating in a group.

One expedition costs up to inr 200000000. Logistical support to the various activities of the Indian Antarctic Programme is provided by the relevant branches of the Indian armed forces. The launching point of Indian expeditions has varied from Goa in India to Cape Town in South Africa on 19th expedition during the time of NCAOR Founding Director Dr. P C Pandey in December 1999. Over 70 institutes in India contributed to its Antarctic Programme as of 2007.

Global cooperation
The Indian Antarctic Programme is bound by the rules of the Antarctic Treaty System, which India signed in 1983. Pandey (2007) outlines the various international activities that India has undertaken as a part of its Antarctic Programme:

India also collaborates with the international community as a member of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Regional Committee of Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in Coastal Indian Ocean (IOCINDIO), International Seabed Authority (ISBA), and the State Parties of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).

Research

Antarctica holds scientific interest for global research projects due to a number of reasons: 'Origin of continents, climate change, meteorology and pollution' are among the reasons cited by S.D. Gad (2008). Mrinalini G. Walawalkar (2005) holds that: 'ice–ocean interaction and the global processes; paleoenvironment and paleoclimatic studies; geological evolution of earth and Gondwanaland reconstruction; Antarctic ecosystems, biodiversity and environment physiology; solar terrestrial processes and their coupling; medical physiology, adaptation techniques and human psychology; environment impact assessment and monitoring; enabling low temperature technology development; and studies on earthquakes' are among the areas of study under the Indian Antarctic Programme.

Close to 1,300 Indians had been to the continent as of 2001 as a part of the country's Antarctic Programme. Indian expeditions to the Antarctic also study the fauna and the molecular biodiversity of the region. A total of 120 new microbes had been discovered as a result of international scientific effort in the Antarctic by 2005. 30 of these microbes had been discovered by Indian scientists. India has also published over 300 research publications based on Antarctic studies as of 2007.

The 'ice cores' retrieved by drilling holes in Antarctic's vast ice-sheets yield information 'on the palaeoclimate and eco-history of the earth as records of wind-blown dust, volcanic ash or radioactivity are preserved in the ice as it gets accumulated over time'. The NCAOR developed a polar research & development laboratory with a 'low-temperature laboratory complex at −20 °C for preservation and analysis of ice core and snow samples' according to S.D. Gad (2008). The 'ice core' samples are held, processed, and analysed in containment units designed by such technology. Storage cases made of poly propylene also ensure that the samples do not alter characteristics and are preserved for analysis in the form that they were recovered.

Research stations
In 1981 the Indian flag unfurled for the first time in Antarctica, marking the start of Southern Ocean expeditions under the environmental protocol of the Antarctic Treaty (1959).

Dakshin Gangotri
The first permanent settlement was built in 1983 and named Dakshin Gangotri. In 1989 it was excavated and is being used again as supply base and transit camp. Dakshin Gangotri was decommissioned in the year 1990 after half of it got buried under the ice. It is nothing more than a historical site now. In its times, it used to double up as a place for multiple support systems, including the presence of an ice-melting plant, laboratories, storage, accommodation, recreation facilities, a clinic and also a bank counter.

Maitri
The second permanent settlement, Maitri, was put up in 1989 on the Schirmacher Oasis and has been conducting experiments in geology, geography and medicine. India built this station close to a freshwater lake around Maitri known as Lake Priyadarshini. Maitri accomplished the mission of geomorphologic mapping of Schirmacher Oasis.

Bharati
Located beside Larsmann Hill at 69°S, 76°E, Bharati is established in March 2012. This newest research station for oceanographic research will collect evidence of continental break-up to reveal the 120-million-year-old ancient history of the Indian subcontinent. In news sources this station was variously spelled "Bharathi", "Bharti" and "Bharati".

India Post Office in Antarctica
It was established in the year 1984 during the third Indian expedition to Antarctica. It was located at Dakshin Gangotri. As many as 10,000 letters were posted and cancelled in this post office in total in the first year of its establishment. Although the post office is no more there, it is a favourite stopover for Indian tourists who visit the place in cruise ships.

The current Indian post office in Antarctica is situated at Maitri, where the country's current research station is also situated.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Indian Antarctic Programme


text: User talk:68.96.28.70

title: User talk:68.96.28.70


text:
M3U

M3U (MP3 URL or Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer 3 Uniform Resource Locator in full) is a computer file format for a multimedia playlist. One common use of the M3U file format is creating a single-entry playlist file pointing to a stream on the Internet. The created file provides easy access to that stream and is often used in downloads from a website, for emailing, and for listening to Internet radio.

Although originally designed for audio files, such as MP3, it is commonly used to point media players to audio and video sources, including online sources. M3U was originally developed by Fraunhofer for use with their Winplay3 software, but numerous media players and software applications now support the format.

Careless handling of M3U playlists has been the cause of vulnerabilities in many music players such as VLC media player, iTunes, Winamp, and many others.

File format
There is no formal specification for the M3U format; it is a de facto standard.

An M3U file is a plain text file that specifies the locations of one or more media files. The file is saved with the "m3u" filename extension if the text is encoded in the local system's default non-Unicode encoding (e.g., a Windows codepage), or with the "m3u8" extension if the text is UTF-8 encoded.

Each entry carries one specification. The specification can be any one of the following:
 * an absolute local pathname; e.g., C:\My Music\Heavysets.mp3
 * a local pathname relative to the M3U file location; e.g. Heavysets.mp3
 * a URL

Each entry ends with a line break which separates it from the following one. Furthermore, some devices only accept line breaks represented as, but do not recognize a single.

Extended M3U
The M3U file can also include comments, prefaced by the "#" character. In extended M3U, "#" also introduces extended M3U directives which are terminated by a colon ":" if they support parameters.

Apple used the extended M3U format as a base for their HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) which was documented in an Independent Submission Stream RFC in 2017 as RFC 8216. Therein, a master playlist references segment playlists which usually contain URLs for short parts of the media stream. Some tags only apply to the former type and some only to the latter type of playlist, but they all begin with.

M3U8
The Unicode version of M3U is M3U8, which uses UTF-8-encoded characters. M3U8 files are the basis for the HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) format originally developed by Apple to stream video and radio to iOS devices, and which is now a popular format for adaptive streaming in general.

The 2015 proposal for the HLS playlist format uses UTF-8 exclusively and does not distinguish between the "m3u" and "m3u8" file name extensions.

Internet media types
The only Internet media type registered for M3U and M3U8 is, registered in 2009 and only referring to the playlist format as used in HLS applications.

The current proposal for the HLS playlist format acknowledges two media types which it treats as equivalent:  and. Likewise, these are the two types recommended for HLS use by Microsoft.

For non-HLS applications, no media types were standardized or registered with the IANA, but a number of media types are nonetheless associated with the historical and ongoing use of the M3U and M3U8 formats for general playlists:

These types, plus  and , are supported for HLS applications by (for example)  Microsoft's Windows 10 and Internet Explorer 9, and LG's WebOS.

Examples
This is an example of an extended M3U file on the Windows platform. Sample.mp3 and Example.ogg are the media files. 123 and 321 are the lengths in seconds. A length of -1 or 0 may be used when the media file is a streaming file, as there is no actual, predefined length value. The value after the length is the title to be shown, which is generally the same as the location of the file which is on the second line. On the macOS and Linux platforms, Unix paths are used. C:\Documents and Settings\I\My Music\Sample.mp3 C:\Documents and Settings\I\My Music\Greatest Hits\Example.ogg
 * Example 1
 * 1) EXTM3U
 * 1) EXTINF:123, Sample artist - Sample title
 * 1) EXTINF:321,Example Artist - Example title

This example shows how to create an m3u file linking to a specified directory (for example, a flash drive, or CD-ROM). The m3u file should contain only one string: the path to the directory. After starting, the media player will play all contents of the directory: C:\Music
 * Example 2

Here is another example, using relative format. The M3U file is placed in the same directory as the music, and directories must be preserved when moving the playlist to another device if subdirectories are used. This method is more flexible, as it does not rely on the file path staying the same.
 * Example 3

This is the same file as above, saved as sample.m3u in C:\Documents and Settings\User\My Music\ Sample.mp3 Greatest Hits\Example.ogg
 * 1) EXTM3U
 * 1) EXTINF:123, Sample artist - Sample title
 * 1) EXTINF:321,Example Artist - Example title

This format in an M3U allows copying to another device for playback. All files and directories referred to must also be copied.

Here is a mixed example: Alternative\Band - Song.mp3 Classical\Other Band - New Song.mp3 Stuff.mp3 D:\More Music\Foo.mp3 ..\Other Music\Bar.mp3 http://www.example.com:8000/Listen.mp3 http://www.example.com/~user/Mine.mp3
 * Example 4

Notes:
 * Alternative and Classical are sub-directories of the directory that this playlist is stored in.
 * "Song" and "New Song" are in sub-directories of the directory that this playlist is stored in.
 * "Stuff" is in the same directory that the playlist is stored in.
 * "Foo" is in the specified (Windows) volume and directory, which may or may not be the same directory the playlist is in.
 * "Bar" is in a different directory at the same level as the playlist directory. The double-dots reference the parent directory of the playlist directory, then into the sub-directory "Other Music" to reach "Bar".
 * "Listen" is a Shoutcast stream.
 * "Mine" is an MP3 stored on a web server.

 * Example 5

References to other M3U playlists, for example, are generally not well-supported.

AnotherPlayList.m3u

The following is an example of a M3U playlist file for "Jar of Flies" album by "Alice in Chains" that was created by Mp3tag with the following custom option settings:
 * Example 6
 * playlist extended info format =
 * playlist filename format =
 * tag to filename conversion format =

Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_01_Rotten Apple.mp3 Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_02_Nutshell.mp3 Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_03_I Stay Away.mp3 Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_04_No Excuses.mp3 Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_05_Whale And Wasp.mp3 Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_06_Don't Follow.mp3 Alice in Chains_Jar of Flies_07_Swing On This.mp3
 * 1) EXTM3U
 * 2) EXTINF:419,Alice in Chains - Rotten Apple
 * 1) EXTINF:260,Alice in Chains - Nutshell
 * 1) EXTINF:255,Alice in Chains - I Stay Away
 * 1) EXTINF:256,Alice in Chains - No Excuses
 * 1) EXTINF:157,Alice in Chains - Whale And Wasp
 * 1) EXTINF:263,Alice in Chains - Don't Follow
 * 1) EXTINF:245,Alice in Chains - Swing On This

Tag editors
The following tag editor software allows users to edit the ID3 tags in MP3 files, and has support for creating M3U files.

 * Linux
 * Kid3, Puddletag.

 * Windows
 * Mp3tag, Puddletag.

Media players
The following media player software supports playing M3U files.

 * Multi-platform

 * Android
 * Astro Player,  Kodi, N7Player,  Musicolet

 * macOS
 * Music, QuickTime Player

 * Nintendo
 * New Nintendo 3DS (including XL and 2DS XL variants) with Internet Browser app
 * Nintendo Switch with the YouTube (site-specific) app
 * Wii U with the Internet Browser or YouTube app

 * Windows
 * foobar2000, JRiver Media Center, JuK, MediaMonkey, PotPlayer, Winamp, Windows Media Player, XMPlay

title: M3U


text: User talk:216.114.70.163

title: User talk:216.114.70.163


text:
Marjorie Bruce

Marjorie Bruce or Marjorie de Brus (c. 1296 – 1316 or 1317) was the eldest daughter of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, and the only child born of his first marriage with Isabella of Mar.

Marjorie's marriage to Walter, High Steward of Scotland, gave rise to the House of Stewart. Her son was the first Stewart monarch, King Robert II of Scotland.

Early life
Her mother, Isabella, was a noblewoman from the Clan Mar. Marjorie was named after her father's mother, Marjorie, Countess of Carrick. Soon after giving birth to Marjorie, at the age of 19, Isabella died. Marjorie's father was at that time the Earl of Carrick.

According to legend, Marjorie's parents had been very much in love, and Robert the Bruce did not remarry until 1302 (six years after his first wife's death), to a courtier named Elizabeth de Burgh.

On 27 March 1306, her father was crowned King of Scots at Scone, Perthshire.

Imprisonment
Three months after the coronation, in June, 1306, her father was defeated at the Battle of Methven. He sent his wife, two sisters, and Marjorie north with his supporter Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan, but by the end of June they were captured by Uilleam II, Earl of Ross, a Balliol supporter, who handed them over to the English.

As punishment, Edward I of England sent his hostages to different places in England. Marjorie was sent to the convent at Watton. Her aunt, Christina Bruce, was sent to another convent. Elizabeth de Burgh was placed under house arrest at a manor house in Yorkshire. Elizabeth de Burgh's punishment was lighter than the others. This is due to the fact that Edward I needed the support of her father, the powerful Earl of Ulster. Marjorie's aunt, Mary Bruce, and the Countess of Buchan were imprisoned in wooden cages, exposed to public view, at Roxburgh Castle and Berwick Castle, respectively.

For the next four years, Elizabeth, Christina, Mary, and Isabella endured solitary confinement. The latter two experienced daily public humiliation. A cage was built for Marjorie, who was around the age of 12, at the Tower of London, but Edward I reconsidered. He instead sent her to the Gilbertine convent in Watton. Christopher Seton, Christina's husband, was executed.

Edward I died on 7 July 1307. He was succeeded by his son, Edward II, who subsequently held Marjorie captive in a convent for about seven more years. She was freed in October 1314, in exchange for Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford captured after the Battle of Bannockburn.

Marriage and death
Upon the liberation of Elizabeth de Burgh and Marjorie from their long captivity in England, Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland, was sent to receive them at the Anglo-Scottish border and conduct them back to the Scottish court. He later married Marjorie. Her dowry included the Barony of Bathgate in West Lothian.

The traditional story is that two years later, on 2 March 1316, Marjorie was riding in Gallowhill, Paisley, Renfrewshire while heavily pregnant. Her horse was suddenly startled and threw her to the ground. She went into premature labour and her child, Robert II of Scotland, was born. Marjorie died soon afterward at the age of around 20, like her mother, who was roughly the same age when she died in childbirth. However, it is not clear that this traditional story is correct; some accounts indicate that she may have survived into 1317. She may still have died in a riding accident, but this could have taken place after the birth of her son. In fact, one source states that she died in October 1317, after falling from a horse, during a second pregnancy. Following the same October 1317 tradition, the Renfrewshire historian Crawford recorded circa 1710 that local tradition reported she was "riding betwixt Pasly and the Castle of Renfrew, then the principal Residence of the Great Stewart of Scotland, her Husband, she was thrown from her Horse, and by the fall suffered a Dislocation of the Vertebrae of her Neck; she, being pregnant, fell in Labour (of King Robert II.) the child or Faetus, as they report, was a Cesar[ian]: The Operation being by an unskilful Hand, his Eye was touch'd by the Instrument, which afterwards proved incurable, from which he was called King Bleareie [ie. bleery eye]; she died upon the Spot: And on the Fatal Place where this Accident happened, there was erected a Cross, yet standing, called Queen Bleareie's Cross." This tradition appears to conflate the dates and facts from other known sources, however authentic references to the sight affliction occurring in infancy, and the related nickname, are lacking.

At the junction of Renfrew Road and Dundonald Road in Paisley, a cairn marks the spot called "the Knock", near where Marjorie reputedly fell from her horse. Bruce Road and Marjorie Drive are named in her honour. She is buried at Paisley Abbey.

Her son succeeded his childless uncle David II of Scotland in 1371 as King Robert II. Her descendants include the House of Stewart (now styled Stuart) and all their successors on the throne of Scotland, England and the United Kingdom.

Marjorie in fiction
The young adult novel Girl in a Cage, by Jane Yolen and Robert J. Harris, features Marjorie Bruce as its protagonist. In it, Marjorie is imprisoned in a cage. Although there is a preface stating that it is fictional, many have taken it to be a true story.

The historical fiction novel Spirit of Fire: The Tale of Marjorie Bruce  (2016), by the young author Emmerson Brand, features Marjorie Bruce as its protagonist.

In the historical action drama film Outlaw King (2018), Marjorie is featured as a minor character during the First War of Scottish Independence.

Commemoration
The original site of Bathgate Castle, which was part of her dowry, can be found on the grounds of Bathgate Golf Club. The site is protected by Historic Environment Scotland and the club is barred from carrying out any excavation work on the site without prior permission. Every year on the first Saturday of June, the town of Bathgate celebrates the marriage of Marjorie and Walter in their annual historical pageant, just before the town's Bathgate Procession and Community Festival (formerly Bathgate Procession and John Newland Festival. Local school children are given the parts of Marjorie, Walter, and other members of the court. After the pageant, everyone joins the procession along with Robert the Bruce on horseback.

title: Marjorie Bruce


text:
Easy Living (1937 film)

Easy Living is a 1937 American screwball comedy film, directed by Mitchell Leisen, written by Preston Sturges from a story by Vera Caspary, and starring Jean Arthur, Edward Arnold, and Ray Milland. Many of the supporting players (William Demarest, Franklin Pangborn, Luis Alberni, Robert Greig, Olaf Hytten, and Arthur Hoyt) became a major part of Sturges' regular stock company of character actors in his subsequent films.

Ralph Rainger and Leo Robin composed the song "Easy Living" for the film, and it has since become a jazz standard, made famous by Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, and many other jazz singers.

The film is unrelated to a 1949 RKO drama by the same name.

Plot
J.B. Ball, the third richest banker in America, has a fight with his son John Jr. over breakfast. It ends with the son leaving, determined to prove that he can make his own way. Ball becomes infuriated after learning that his wife Jenny bought a $58,000 sable fur coat, and he decides it has to be returned. After finding many fur coats in her closet, Ball grabs the sable coat. Jenny takes it from him, and a chase takes them to the roof of their New York City penthouse. He throws it over the edge.

It lands on Mary Smith while she is riding to work on a double-decker bus. When she tries to return it, he tells her to keep it, without telling her how costly it is. He also buys her an expensive new hat to replace the one damaged in the incident, causing Van Buren, the owner of the shop, to mistake her for Ball's mistress. Van Buren loses no time in spreading the word. When Mary shows up for work, her straitlaced boss suspects her of behaving improperly to get a coat she obviously cannot afford and fires her to protect the reputation of the Boy's Constant Companion, the magazine he publishes.

Mary is nearly penniless, but she begins receiving offers from people eager to cash in on her notoriety. Hotel owner Mr. Louis Louis installs her in a luxury suite, hoping that this will deter Ball from foreclosing on his failing establishment. When Mary goes to an automat for a meal, she meets John Jr., who is working there anonymously. However, he is fired for giving Mary free food and starting a food fight. When Mary finds out he has no place to stay, she invites him to share her enormous suite while he looks for a new job. They quickly fall in love. Meanwhile, J.B.'s wife goes to Florida, he moves into the Hotel Louis, and reports of a nonexistent affair make their way into gossip columns. The hotel instantly becomes popular with the elite, and various luxury firms begin giving Mary jewelry, clothes, and a sixteen-cylinder car.

Mary's supposed connection to J.B. has disastrous consequences for the stock market. Stockbroker E.F. Hulgar asks her for inside information about steel from Mr. Ball. The only Ball the confused Mary knows is John Jr., so she consults him. He jokingly tells her it is going down, and she passes this along to Hulgar. As a result, everybody begins selling just as J.B. starts buying, causing his firm to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. Jenny returns from Florida. When Mary, John, and J.B. finally get together and figure out what is going on, John comes up with a bright solution: Mary tells Hulgar that J.B. has cornered the market on steel. Prices shoot up, rescuing the beleaguered financier. The delighted J.B. gives his son a job, and John Jr. asks Mary to be his wife.

Cast

 * Jean Arthur as Mary Smith
 * Edward Arnold as J.B. Ball
 * Ray Milland as John Ball Jr.
 * Luis Alberni as Mr. Louis Louis
 * Mary Nash as Mrs. (Jenny) Ball
 * Franklin Pangborn as Van Buren (the hat shop proprietor who starts the misunderstanding)
 * Barlowe Borland as Mr. Gurney
 * William Demarest as Wallace Whistling (the gossip columnist who makes Mary famous)
 * Andrew Tombes as E.F. Hulgar
 * Esther Dale as Lillian (J.B.'s secretary)
 * Harlan Briggs as Office Manager
 * William B. Davidson as Mr. Hyde
 * Nora Cecil as Miss Swerf
 * George Cowl as Bank President
 * Robert Greig as Butler (Graves, J.B. Ball's butler)
 * Robert Homans as Private Guard (uncredited)
 * Olaf Hytten as Houseman (uncredited)

Cast notes:
 * Jean Arthur and Edward Arnold starred together in 1935's Diamond Jim, also written by Sturges.
 * This was the second film written by Preston Sturges that William Demarest appeared in, after Diamond Jim, and he would go on to do eight others.
 * Franklin Pangborn, another member of Sturges' de facto stock company, first worked with the writer on Imitation of Life (1934). In 1937, before working on Easy Living, he appeared in Hotel Haywire, and subsequently in seven other of Sturges' productions.

Production
Preston Sturges had signed a deal with Paramount in 1936, and Easy Living was his first assignment for them. Although putatively based on a story by Vera Caspary, Sturges in fact supposedly kept almost nothing of it except the fur coat. When a studio executive rejected the script because "1936 was not the time for comedies", Sturges took the script directly to Mitchell Leisen, of which Sturges said "going to a director over the head of my producer was not a sagacious move".

Preston based the Hotel Louis on the Waldorf Towers, which was a financial flop when it first opened.

Adolphe Menjou was to have been in the cast of Easy Living, but was forced to withdraw due to illness. The minor surgery of director Leisen caused production to be postponed a week to 5 April 1937.

Leisen said that Ray Milland got stuck in the tub while shooting the bathtub scene, and although the incident wasn't in the script, Leisen kept the camera rolling and inserted the bit into the film. The phone gag with Esther Dale as the secretary was based on the behavior of Leisen's secretary, who got the phones on her desk mixed up.

Under the belief that an actress needs to be satisfied with the way she will look in order to devote all her attention to her acting, Leisen personally directed all of Arthur's wardrobe and hair tests, and went so far as to style her hair himself. (Leisen had come to directing from the world of costume design and art direction).

Leisen's pains paid off – the shy and nervous Jean Arthur had a reputation for being difficult, but the director had no trouble with her on Easy Living, which was all the more surprising since Arthur was in the middle of a bitter dispute with Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohn. Dissatisfied with the films Columbia was putting her in, she wanted out of her contract. (Arthur was contractually able to do two outside pictures a year, which is why she could do Easy Living for Paramount).

It has been reported in Jean Arthur's biography and elsewhere (Bob Dorian on American Movie Classics a few years ago) that the jewels and furs Arthur wore in the film were genuine, and that guards were posted during the filming.

A legal dispute between Twentieth-Century Fox and Paramount over the source for the film threatened to hold up its release. Fox asserted that the film was based on a Hungarian play called Der Komet by Attila Orbok, which they owned and had used as the basis for My Lips Betray (1933) and were planning to use as the basis for an upcoming Sonja Henie film, Thin Ice. Fox eventually backed off their claim of infringement, and Easy Living was released as scheduled on July 7, 1937.

Reception
Variety called Easy Living a "poor imitation [of My Man Godfrey]", adding that "[unlike the latter, this one lacks] spontaneity and cleverness".

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 100 percent based on 10 critics, with an average rating of 7.9/10.

title: Easy Living (1937 film)


text:
User talk:Knitwit

IaMhacKERYouRPCMineTOconTROLiS:IwilLCrashYourPCafTERupLOADING9999999999999999DiFFEerENtViRUSestOdeSTroyYou

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Knitwit"

title: User talk:Knitwit


text: User talk:69.208.25.2

title: User talk:69.208.25.2


text:
Permutation automaton

In automata theory, a permutation automaton, or pure-group automaton, is a deterministic finite automaton such that each input symbol permutes the set of states.

Formally, a deterministic finite automaton $A$ may be defined by the tuple (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F), where Q is the set of states of the automaton, Σ is the set of input symbols, δ is the transition function that takes a state q and an input symbol x to a new state δ(q,x), q0 is the initial state of the automaton, and F is the set of accepting states (also: final states) of the automaton. $A$ is a permutation automaton if and only if, for every two distinct states $q_{i}$ and $q_{j}$ in Q and every input symbol $x$ in Σ, δ(qi,x) ≠ δ(qj,x).

A formal language is p-regular (also: a pure-group language) if it is accepted by a permutation automaton. For example, the set of strings of even length forms a p-regular language: it may be accepted by a permutation automaton with two states in which every transition replaces one state by the other.

Applications
The pure-group languages were the first interesting family of regular languages for which the star height problem was proved to be computable.

Another mathematical problem on regular languages is the separating words problem, which asks for the size of a smallest deterministic finite automaton that distinguishes between two given words of length at most n – by accepting one word and rejecting the other. The known upper bound in the general case is $$O(n^{2/5}(\log n)^{3/5})$$. The problem was later studied for the restriction to permutation automata. In this case, the known upper bound changes to $$O(n^{1/2})$$.

title: Permutation automaton


text:
Albert Saunders

Albert Saunders may refer to:

 * Albert Charles Saunders (1874–1943), Canadian politician and jurist from Prince Edward Island
 * Albert Bokhare Saunders (1880–1946), composer of romantic and light classical music

title: Albert Saunders


text:
United Communist Party (Netherlands)

United Communist Party (Verenigde Communistische Partij or VCP) is a small communist party in the Netherlands, formed in 1999, and mainly based in Oldambt and Pekela. It is a break-away party from the New Communist Party of the Netherlands (NCPN).

History
The VCP was created as a local split of the NCPN in north-east Groningen. The NCPN was created in 1992 by members of the Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN) who opposed the merger of the CPN with other leftwing parties to form GroenLinks in the late eighties. North-east Groningen is historically a bulwark of support for the CPN, and later the NCPN.

The main reason of the split lied in a disagreement surrounding a large construction project, consisting of mainly expensive villas, called Blauwestad. The Scheemda chapter of the NCPN was opposed to the plan, while the Reiderland chapter was in favor. In Reiderland the NCPN was part of the governing coalition, whereas in Scheemda the party was part of the opposition. In 1999 this disagreement led to a definite split, with the Scheemda chapter forming the VCP.

In 2009, the municipalities of Scheemda and Reiderland merged to form the new municipality of Oldambt. Both the NCPN and the VCP contested the elections in the new municipality, however only the VCP won representation.

Ideology
The VCP describes itself as a party based upon scientific socialism as developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The party strives to eliminate, through democratic means, all elements of capitalism and its outgrowths, such as fascism, national socialism and all other forms of suppression and exploitation. In its day to day political work in Oldambt, the party focuses on transparancy and the support of grassroots actions.

title: United Communist Party (Netherlands)


text: User talk:204.8.196.2

title: User talk:204.8.196.2


text:
Talk:Evangelion (mecha)

from
Much of the content on this page came from the (now-removed) merged article "List of Eva-Units in Neon Genesis Evangelion", which is now available at Talk:Evangelion (giant robot)/List of Eva-Units in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Do not delete that page - we need it (and its history) for Wikipedia copyright reasons! Noel (talk) 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

G7
The countries listed for the G7 countries are one more than the actual count of G7 countries (Russia wasn't part of the G7). Does it mean G8, which includes Russia? Did G8 form before or after End of Eva was made? -℘yrop (talk) 19:19, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * The G8 was formed after the series was created. The information should be G7 + Russia + China 67.71.170.108 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ROBOTS??
Considering the information that the authors of this page have presented, which is well known and documented in the fan community, what on Earth is the justification for referring in the title to the Evangelions as giant robots? Giant bio-engineered artificial humanoids comes closer. They are no more robots than the authors of this page, or the readers of it. (talk) 08:34, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Touji's sister as a soul - Clear up
The paragraph in question is:
 * It has been speculated that this Eva contains the soul of Touji's sister, though like the idea that Unit 00 contains the soul of Naoko Akagi, this is not universally accepted. Although Touji's sister is not shown to be dead, it is possible that she is alive but insane from the loss of her soul (in this context, there is a theory that Asuka's mother went insane because she lost her soul, in which case soul loss would not imply death.) It is also possible that NERV is just lying and that Touji's sister is dead, since she is not seen afterwards.

My reasons for removing this is, firstly, because it is not officially stated nor inferred. There has been no evidence, shown in the series, for suggesting that his sister's soul has been transplanted into Unit 03. Secondly, Touji's sister was reported to be alive and well by Episode 03 from Kensuke's line, "He said that his younger sister scolded him. She told him that it was the robot that saved our lives." Her injuries were physical, caused by being crushed by debris. If she was well enough to talk with an attitude, it can be assumed that she has stabilized. After that, there has been practically no mention of her condition changing. Touji next appears in ep. 6, he was cheering for Shinji. Ep. 7, he was harping on Misato. Ep. 8, he was annoyed at Asuka. Ep. 9, he was upset with Shinji having to live with Asuka. Ep. 10, he goes on a school trip. Ep. 12, he congratulates Misato for having become a Major. Ep. 15, he knocks Shinji for not cleaning the classroom. Ep. 17, he is recruited for Unit 03. These are his only appearances, and as can be seen, no one of his behaviors indicate anything wrong. If anything wrong did happen to his sister, he would have known right away since he visits her frequently. He pilots Eva because he only wanted better facilities for her. His last words were "Why don't you tell my sister that there's nothing seriously wrong with me?" indicated that when he last remembered, his sister was still functioning, mentally, well enough. Lastly, assuming there is a soul to whom he would be close to, it would most likely be his mother, since it was indicated that he had no mother. In other words, the speculation is just too unsupported and insignificant to be included in the entry. If we were to let this sort of thing from happening, we might as well speculate that Rei likes rock music because she never said she didn't like it. I hope you understand, Ken. -Anon

 * It's true that Touji's sister is alive and well as of episode 4, but Touji doesn't become a pilot in episode 4. There is plenty of time after episode 4 for her to die or go insane.  And while we know that Touji's sister was mentally okay the last time he saw her, we don't know when the last time he saw her was, or how often he is allowed to see her.  (And considering how many important plot elements we know the series doesn't mention, it could very well be that he was suddenly kept away from her and we were never told about it.)  There's nothing inconsistent between this idea and what we're told and shown.

 * There's no *proof*, of course, but there's no proof for a lot of speculations in the articles, including the Akagi in Unit 00 theory, the meanings of the TV ending, and the hypotheses about what the characters represent. (And the difference between this and Rei liking rock music is that the Touji's sister idea is something that people other than us genuinely offer as a theory, while Rei liking rock music is not.)  If we're going to have speculations in the article at all (and we are), then speculation that is common and not outright false belongs here.  Removing speculation just because it's unproven or unlikely is a recipe for disaster, since all speculation is unproven and all speculation is considered unlikely by someone. Ken Arromdee 07:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If such speculation is to be inserted into the article, then I would insist that we should be complete in what we start. From my most objective point of view, I see that this bit of speculation that you have added may be removed not because it is speculation, but rather because it is a weak speculation - an easy possibility, because it has very little contact with what we already know. Because of this, in speculating that Touji's sister is the soul for Unit 03, it is in everyone's best interest to include speculation for all the other possibilities of whose soul may be the soul of Unit 03, because Touji's sister is only one of many other possible people. By doing this, we can make this section of the entry more stronger by speculating on who the soul might be. Consider this analogy of a box of shapes that can be chosen to fit into a slot. If we were so dumb that none of us could work it out without experimenting (which we are unable to do), we may speculate as to which shape may fit and why. It would be no use to debate over just a reactangle, however, when we have the square, the circle, the triangle, etc. Similarly, instead of entering a paragraph on just the possibility of Touji's sister being a soul, we could make the paragraph investigate all the other possible souls: his mother (she is presumably dead), his father (he works as a scientist and may have been kidnapped the day before), etc. Only then can the paragraph be useful in a small way. Even then, we'd probably never find out. In my opinion, it was too arduous for me to do the above, and I thought the speculation is relatively too unimportant to really put so much work into. Because of this, I had to remove it. Unless this bit of speculation somehow becomes stronger with more evidence, I don't believe it's really worth having it up there as it is. So, this is the choice I will offer: rewrite the paragraph so it is able to explain how other souls it might be (we will have to use our imagination), or leave the paragraph out. And as a P.S., I don't know any "important plot elements we know" that the series doesn't mention. -Anon

 * The difference between Touji's sister and Touji's father is that if you go into Google and do a search, you'll find a number of pages which mention the Touji's sister theory and none which mention the Touji's father theory. That makes including the former a lot more sensible than including the latter--speculations that are common fan theories and speculations that you just made up thuis minute aren't the same thing.  There are pages that mention Touji's mother, so including that would be reasonable, but not every possible character in the show.

 * As for important plot elements the show doesn't tell us, the fact that fans still argue about whether Shinji accepted instrumentality at the end of episode 26 should demonstrate that the show explains it inadequately. (Not to mention all the material that is incomprehensible without resort to outside sources like the RCB.) Ken Arromdee 17:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Please do understand that just because a fair number of people like the hypothesis doesn't make it any stronger as a hypothesis. For the Touji's sister theory, there is a small bit of evidence (Ep. 4) that works against the hypothesis, while, since there is barely any mention of Touji's dad, there is less evidence that he might not be the one, and so, as a hypothesis, is even more possible than Touji's sister. So why is that hypothesis less popular? Because it doesn't sound as nice. If you really are determined to have this hypothesis up, then I would be happy if you wrote it so it sounds exactly as it really is. It's a bit of speculation that is poorly supported, but has gathered some popularity among fans. After all, there is only evidence that suggests it is possible, but no evidence that it actually happens. The possibilities of Touji's other family members should also be mentioned, though; if not to make the section more informative, then to demonstrate that your hypothesis is no more as logically compelling as the others. -Anon

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You aren't supposed to speculate; you're only supposed to report speculations made by other people.  Making your own speculation is barred as original research.

 * Assuming you aren't taking the tack that each statement needs a named source (which would mean removing a lot more than just the sister section, and which would gut most popular culture articles and result in a lot of trivial 'according to Google, one popular theory among fans is...' attributions), you still need *a* source. So the fact that the "Touji's sister" hypothesis is popular while the "Touji's dad" hypothesis is not makes all the difference in the world.  Fans make the former hypothesis, and you can report what speculation they're making.  Fans do not make the latter hypothesis, and including it means you're speculating on your own, which isn't allowed. Ken Arromdee 16:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I can see what you're saying, there. Of course, speculation is no research. And if it is research, then the hypothesis of Touji's sister would probably then be of concern, as well. As said on the first line, "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." From what I gather of what you have wrote, the hypothesis is purely fan-based, and I would certainly not consider that a reputable source. Certainly, there are entire fan-made pages that can be found with their own theories to do with Evangelion, but we can see that there are some that can be rather reputable; they add up very well. However, I have yet to see one that touches upon Touji's sister being a soul. If speculation is to be considered original research, we can't have the sister hypothesis. If speculation is not to be considered original research, then hell, we can put whatever speculation we deem appropriate here. In this case, the very least I can expect of the paragraph is a summary on Touji's mother as a soul, followed by Touji's sister. As I may have indicated, I removed the paragraph because I believed it was too incomplete as a new section, and the section itself is too insignificant (or too difficult to prove/disprove each possible hypothesis) to be practical to include. If the section could be improved, then that would be good. If the section could be made more compelling, then that would be good. -Anon

 * However, I have yet to see one that touches upon Touji's sister being a soul.

 * Oh, come on, now. I just did a Google search for 'evangelion "Touji's sister" soul'.  You still get a lot of false hits, but the first page of results has 4 real hits (from 3 separate pages).  I can't find *any* real hits on 'evangelion "Touji's father" soul'.   The sister theory is well-known among fans; the father theory isn't.  (The mother theory is legitimate and can be included.)

 * It's true that it's fan based, but as I pointed out, if you're going to eliminate fan-based speculation, there are quite a few things you must also eliminate. If you are going to have speculation at all, the speculation should be fan theories, not random theories that nobody believes. Ken Arromdee 23:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you have misinterpreted what I have been trying to say. I'm not trying to get rid of fan-based speculation. That would be impractical and may be counter-productive. Your argument is that the sister hypothesis is believed by more people than a father one, and you are right, but this isn't just about having Touji's father in this or not. I am saying that if you want, that much, to have this hypothesis, then other hypotheses that are just as viable will also have the right to be put in. And for the very reason that they are not very viable, I am suggesting that this section shouldn't be put in as is. I am trying to be reasonable, of course. I would encourage the expansion of Wikipedia artcles, but I am firmly opposed to putting information that may well be incorrect or misleading. Your section isn't this, I acknowledge, but I do feel it comes uncomfortably close to it. The reason being simply that the speculation is inferentially weak. If I leave it as it is, it can be misleading for those who read, and if I add to it to balance things out, it can very easily be seen as a waste of effort since such speculation on this level is best left ignored, and I'm sure you'd agree, especially about Touji's father. The only option that I thought was best at the time was to take it off. To put it simply, if putting the sister hypothesis on Wikipedia is the only way you can rest, then please present it in such a way which reflects how outstanding it really is. In my opinion, in writing a paragraph about speculating whose soul is used in Unit 03, the most prominant one would be Touji's mother, since that is what the extrapolation of the evidence we get would point us to, first. Only after this should be start exploring the possible tangents. -Anon

 * "Then other hypotheses that are just as viable will also have the right to be put in" is wrong. The criterion isn't viability, but popularity.  Equally viable, but non-popular, hypotheses should not go in.

 * Wikipedia articles are not for making arguments. However, they can be used to report arguments that other people make.  This may seem similar, but it's not the same thing, and sometimes you cannot include things (like equally viable hypotheses) that you would include if you were making arguments yourself. Ken Arromdee 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ken, please listen to yourself. Wikipedia is not a patron of popularity. Wikipedia has never set a "criterion" for popularity over viablility. If there is a citerion, it would be the other way around. Fact is more important than opinion, especially in an encyclopaedia. And I have never suggested to make arguments on Wikipedia articles, rather emphasised on reporting the information is the most appropriate way. Moreover, the mother hypothesis is, in fact, more popular, anyway. What really matters, and what I have been trying to do, is that we have to come to a decision on a course of action. Again, I will ask you, would you rather write the speculation section to include the other hypotheses, or leave it out, altogether? -Anon

 * It is about facts. "People believe this argument" is a fact; making the argument yourself is speculation.  You aren't supposed to speculate, but you can report facts.

 * So yes, there are popularity criteria. If an idea is genuinely popular, you can write about it as "people believe this idea".  If an idea is not, you can't do this, even if the two ideas are equally viable.

 * How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories

 * For theories:
 * state the key concepts;
 * state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.

 * I am willing to mention the mother hypothesis, since that is also popular. I'm not going to mention the father one, because it's not. Ken Arromdee 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * So now I see what you're doing. Rather than writing a paragraph about speculating on whose soul may go into Unit 03, you are writing a paragraph on what people believe. This may help in us resolving the issue. If the above is the case, then I'd simply like to argue that the main focus for the section would be better if it was on who the soul might be than on what people believe it might be, since it is much more on-topic with the world of Evangelion over the real-world. If you want to be writing about "theories", I have no qualms if it follows the steps given above. We will firstly have to identify key concepts and the general consensus, though.

 * From what I know, the key concepts would include that souls are taken from humans to be transfered to an Evangelion (which is soulless, at first) and that the soul is usually that of someone close to the pilot (in all known cases, that is the mother). These are the only certain key concepts that work on all understood cases. (As you can see, due to the lack of boundaries in the case of Unit 03, it is difficult to derive a good candidate.) Next, we find out the "consensus". Concuring with the key concepts, given, it is generally accepted that there is a soul. Next, if we are to find the consensus for a specific person, I believe it would be Touji's mother, in accordance to the "popularity criteria". The second most popular belief, from what I know, would be the sister hypothesis. The rest, I don't think we'll have to include. So, there you have it! -Anon

 * I would say that a theory or speculation, for it to be a theory, needs to explain something. Knowing whose is Unit 00's soul is important to explain its strange behaviour respect Rei and Gendo. Also in Unit 01, and Unit 02 though thankfully, that's explained in the show. But for Unit 03, there is not much reason to speculate whose soul is. Unit 03 spends very little time functioning before it gets infected, and during that time, nothing is shown about its "personality". What i mean is: What would be explained by saying that Unit 03's soul is Toji's sister's? [Jota Be--193.144.85.123 11:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)]

I personally think it is much more probable that Unit 03 contained the soul of Toji's mother. Every other classmate in Shinji's school had a dead mother (Hikari, Kensuke) and I think it was implied that so did Toji. Toji's sister was alive even after Unit 03 was destroyed, and although (as seen with Asuka's mother) you can use part of a soul and leave someone biologically alive, I don't think they needed to do that; plus I think it specifically needs to be the mother. Of course, this is just speculation.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 09:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

With Toji's sister making an appearance in Rebuild 2.0, this speculation is now officially refuted.--89.147.118.135 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency of Evangelion namings
I had a discussion with User:Toiletduck regarding the consistency of the way the Evangelions should be addressed, and we agreed to the rules he outlined. However the information here says that the official way of addressing the Evas should be Unit n, and I believe that, given the source of the information, that this should be made the standard way of addressing the Evas across all the Neon Genesis Evangelion article. So, should the naming convention outlined here be made the standard one for all the articles? --cheese-cube 09:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Eva-04 image
The image being used for Eva-04 is actually a fan illustration created by Maher Al-Samkari, author of the Evangelion based fanfiction "Eva:R" (www.eva-r.com). While the drawing of "MARI" (Mobile Armored Reconnassance and Infantry) is based on an offical Eva-04 illustration by Gainax, I think it goes without saying that it's not appropriate to be using this particular image. That image should be redirected to an Eva:R wikipedia entry, and the official Gainax image (there is only one official one, to my knowledge) should be used in its place.

 * Fixed. I'm quite amused that that image was used.  It was actually one of my old forum avatars, why anyone would use it is laughable to me. --The Eva Monkey

 * So, is the official GAINAX EVA-04 picture going to be posted? There is an official Revoltech figure for EVA-04, so it stands to reason there must be an official design photograph of some sort to replace it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.53.17.70 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I've removed the image of Eva 04 that was being used: Eva 04 is silver, not white. I don't see how continuing to use an incorrect image will help that. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Silver is harder to depict than white. An image that differs slightly from the description in the text is better than no image at all, in my opinion. Hellbus 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By that logic I could post a picture of a green-colored Eva and say its "better than nothing". Silver is harder to depict than white? Can't anyone find a silver picture of this thing?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 12:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just keep watching mecha anime, you will find several mech that suppose to be silver yet look like white in show (Cybuster for example). L-Zwei 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a picture of an action figure of that Eva work for the article? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I was embarrased to suggest that (although the thought had occured to me some time ago), but yes, I think using a (good quality) picture of the Eva 04 action figure would be a great idea. (I mean it's really  just the physical twin of Eva 03, but silver instead of black.)....show a pic of an action figure, but also, here's an official Gainax image showing it as silver here, unfortunately its only a headshot.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I could try to locate the box that my Unit 04 figure was in. The picture on the box might work better than a picture of the figure itself. Hellbus 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'''We seriously need to find a better picture of Eva 04 which shows its true silver color, not white. Frankly I'd take an action figure picture at this point. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did manage to find the box, but the pictures on it are not very good. I'd rather not use a picture of the figure itself unless that was done for the other Evas as well. I do have the whole set, if it comes to that. Regarding the existing image, I don't see it as being as much of a problem as you do. It's already noted in the section that Unit 04 is silver. Adding gray shading to parts of the existing image might make it look more silvery, but the resulting image, if used, might be a copyright violation. Hellbus 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A trimmed version of this wallpaper might be useful. It's only a shade lighter than the official one.--Amitakartok (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 * honestly, we don't need an image of Eva unit 04. We need images of the most common Eva units, such as Eva unit 00, 01, and 02.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll try to upload them but no promises; they'll most likely get deleted very quickly. I uploaded the new Evas from Rebuild 2.0 and I immediately got a notice from YOU that I should take them down "due to levels of importance and relevance" (they're from a spinoff so they shouldn't belong here or something like that). Last week, I added a fair use rationale to keep them from getting deleted so they remain for the time being. Also, which versions should I upload? I'm not talking about a bazillion pictures (you said we can't have too many), just one of each: Unit 00 (orange, blue, Rebuild), Unit 01 (already have one up), Unit 02 (original, Rebuild version's head), Unit 03 (either will do fine), Eva Series (one group pic since we can't tell which is which). Is this arrangement OK?--Amitakartok (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They're Evas of the new remake. I know there is at least an image of Eva unit 00, 01, and 02 together. The Eva images could stay, but only if they were together which would be difficult. Let's wait until they reveal the recent one correctly.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

S² Engine related to regeneration?
In this article there seems to be an explicit relationship between the S² engine and an angels ability to regenerate, with the eva series being treated as an anomaly, however I wonder if this is the case. Firstly, regeneration is taken to be an ability posessed by all angels even though it is only demonstrated by two of them (the 3rd and the 7th). I can't complain about this because in the first episode this ability seems to have been be already known and documented by NERV. However it is unclear whether it is supposed to be different or more profound than the natural regenerative capabilities of any living creature. There is certainly no instance of the almost instant regeneration displayed by unit 01, with Israfel requiring six days to restore itself completely. Secondly, I can't find any other reference to the phenomenon of regeneration being related to the S² organ, either in the series or in the fan community. That's not to say it's not there, which is why I haven't removed the connections made in the article. I was just wondering if anyone knew why that link was made in the first place. As a final note, Unit 01's regeneration in episode 14 is definitely not brought about by the S² organ, as it regrows its arm before assimilating the S² from Zeruel. -User:McFaust 03:32, 24 December 2005

 * That's a good point. In addition, even if it does allow regeneration (rapid or slow), it seems like the Production Models do regenerate. When Asuka is attacking them in EoE, she chops one in half with a Heavy Lance, and another's leg off. Yet those wounds can't be seen later on, when they form the Sephiroth or the Tree. Is there any official documentation on either S^2 engine or Production Eva regeneration? Spencer F. 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an animation error, mentioned in the article. After that shot you can see that the units are, in fact, damaged. Hellbus 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

reqimage
each Eva should have an image in their sections... (00 should have two, one blue, one orange)
 * should pictures actually be uploaded, Two images would be required. One for the original appearance (ass seen in the series). Two for their Rebuild counterparts. (three for Unit 00) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEncounter (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

split articles
Shouldn't 00, 01, and 02 have separate articles? I noticed that other anime series have articles for individual mecha (especially the over-articled Gundam Seed). 67.71.170.108 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Typicaly speaking, anime mecha are divided into articles specifying their leniage. A zaku is different from a gelgoog which both have a wide variety of variants present in their respective articles. In that regards, all the Evas are products of a single development project consisting of an early prototype, late prototype, three production models, and nine mass-production models. In that regard, they are the evolution of a single design.192.168.0.102 23:49, 18 March 2006
 * Unit 01 probably should have its own article, since it has a personality, and is a non-speaking character on the show. As for comparison with Gundam, these are cyborgs, not fully mechanical things. The other Evas don't warrant their own articles. 132.205.44.5 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Evangelion Heights
I just re-watched the first 24 episodes of the anime, and found no inconsistencies with the heights of the Evangelion. They were always, always, always roughly 40 meters tall. (That translates to roughly 10 stories of a building.) Any appearances of greater height seem to be just that -- "camera" tricks, combined with the fact that 40 meters is truly, awesomely, nearly inconceivably tall. Even the scene with the destroyers - those are about 15 meters breadth, IRL. For the Evangelions, that would be a little more than shoulder width! Anyhow, I'm definitely going to adjust the main article to reflect this. Too many people (in fanfiction) are arbitrarily setting the 200m mark as though it has as much support as the 40m mark. (As of yet, I've seen nothing to support it. Then, I haven't gone and re-watched the various end-of-evangelions.)  --Obsidian-fox 10:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I just watched the rebuild of eva movie and found that the height is kind of variable. For instance, when eva 01 was fighting Shamshel, it got knocked down and almost crushed 2 or shinji's classmates, assuming the they are 1.5 meters tall, we can deduce that the each finger of the eva is between 3-5 meters in length. Now if the evas are really 40 meters tall, that means that it's body is approximately the size of 8-13 fingers lined up. This is obviously not true since measuring from my body (approximating the eva) 8 fingers only goes up to my thigh. So based on this measurement, an eva is atleast 80 meters tall. Ofcourse there are other inconsistencies, such as when a eva was fighting on an aircraft carrier. Typical aircraft carriers are usually 300-400 meters in length, and i seem to remember that eva 02 jumped onto one in the episode, the proportion does not suggest that the eva was 40 meters in height. thus based on my 2 rudimentary analysis, i think it is better to say that evas are between 40-200 meters in height and I shall reflect that change. 129.2.206.65 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree; Evangelions clearly change size based on the situation, mainly for cinematic effect. Sometimes they're taller than buildings, and sometimes they're climbing buildings.  I support listing a range rather than a definite height, and giving the reasoning behind it. Gamer 2k4 (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reigoki
Why is "Reigoki" used along with "Shugouki" and "Nigouki"? The Japanese dialogue actually SAYS "Shugouki" and "Nigouki" but for Unit Zero they say "Zerogouki," not "Reigouki." Repeatedly. In fact, I've never heard them use Reigouki, ever. Is this in the manga or something? Is it possibly just reading the kanji for zero as "rei" even though they decided to just use a kanji for the word zero? I've noticed that the Evangelion-related entries consistently reference "Reigouki" (the Rei Ayanami article for example) so I figured I'd ask first. 72.192.237.134 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Ismail
 * As an added note to this (same poster as note above here, I looked in the history. It seems people dropped "zerogouki" because "they mean the same thing."  Even if that's true, the article as it stands claims that they address it as "reigouki" in the show when quite simply they do not.  I realize it may mess up other wikilinks, but rather than persist in a wrong term, we should fix up those other wikilinks also.  It isn't ever called "reigouki" verbally in the show at all.  It's called "zerogouki" so the article shouldn't claim it is called reigouki erroneously.  72.192.237.134 Ismail
 * Someone saw what I said and fixed those... I fixed a lingering instance of reigouki, but there's the infobox at the bottom, which seems to be a separate entity from this page. Where can I go to edit that?  (For that matter, do we need an Evangelions category if they all go to the same page?)  72.192.237.134 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Ismail
 * Fixed the infobox. EASports 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike;

it really is inconceivably tall. the sheer weight of something that large would topple buildings and everything around it. Here's a good way to find it's size: Get a picture of the head next to the pilot. This would show the head being abouth four meters or 12 feet. This is about the same size of a larger gundam unit.

MP Eva's reactivation?
Is there an explanation for why the MP Evas are able to reactivate after being killed? (since it is said that their S2 organs do not regenerate)--Dch111 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but I think that they're more versitile and can live without certain parts of their bodies. However, you should notice that none of them had their core broken, so they didn't really die and at the end when they impale themselves with the lances of longinus they don't reactivate. --L337M4G3 7:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good observation...that may indeed be the key. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I do question how the one she cut the legs off of and sent flying could still move around, but I guess because it had wings its okay (they should still have shown it missing legs). Of course, the first one, which she busted its skull with a flying leap then wrang the blood out of like a rag....how could that thing have lived?  Yeah, well, it's just "they've got S2 Engines" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Maybe it has something to do with Kaworu, since his name was on the dummy plugs and he was an angel.The Twilight Goddess 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Include JetAlone in this article?
Just a thought. It is the only true mecha of the series.

 * No it has its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Regarding the naming of the MP Evas
While I can't argue with the logic, I think it's a little excessive to note it in the article, as I don't think their Unit #s are ever discussed in canon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see some onscreen graphics in EoE that identify them as Units 05 to 13, but it is never said which is which. The names are never spoken by any characters (except when Misato mentions that some parts delivered to NERV were intended for 05 and 06), so I can agree that the name translations are not really necessary. Hellbus 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I fixed it. P.S. I"m totally psyched about the Rebuild of Evangelion teaser trailer due out tomorrow. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 14:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mecha?
Should this page be named "Mecha?" Evangelion Units aren't really mecha. They are mostly organic, closer really to cyborgs than robots. If a sutable term cannoth be agreedd on I suppose it's ok, but the title is sort of misleading. (Animedude 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't know that a suitable alternative has been devised. In terms of size and application, I guess it works to call the Evas mechas, ones with a very different method of construction compared to others. Hellbus 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the page should be renamed to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelion_(Cyborg)" and they should be identified as Cyborgs as opposed to mechas. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, it is a failing of the Wiki if it is identifying something incorrectly and needs to be corrected. This was actually my reason for coming to this talk page.
 * When I think of "cyborg" I tend to think of something human-sized, like the Borg from Star Trek. "Mecha" makes me think of something huge, which is what the Evas are. I think the mecha/cyborg argument is just semantics and not really necessary. Hellbus (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the common imagery associated with 'mecha' is closer than that of 'cyborg' does not mean that it should be called a mecha. It's akin to calling whales and dolphin fish, the imagery may be appropriate but it is not correct. --193.61.104.4 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're being a bit pedantic here. Hellbus (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a bad habit and I don't mean to sound condescending, sorry if I gave you that impression. I know the Evas are classified as Mecha by numerous sources but if people are assuming/calling them the wrong thing that doesn't mean we have to. All I'm asking is that the two instances where they are refered to as mecha be changed to cyborg along with the page title. I'm ok with the main NGE page refering to them as mecha as it is what the majority of the public know them as but if someone is going to look into more detail I feel it is important to use the correct term. --193.61.104.4 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the Evas are classified as Mecha by numerous sources... That's the thing. If the sources calls them mecha, Wikipedia can't call them something else. This is why we have WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 10:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, here are two excerpts from the Mecha article. "Mecha, also known as meka or mechs, are walking vehicles controlled by a pilot." "Not all mechas need be completely mechanical. Some have biological components with which to interface with their pilots, and some are partially biological themselves." I don't think there's any need to argue this further. Hellbus (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What a strange article. I don't think I've ever seen 'meka' used. --Gwern (contribs) 13:49 12 June 2009 (GMT)

'''While Evangelions are mostly-organic cyborgs and not "machines", the series was directly meant to be a sort of satire/breaking conventions of the "Giant Mecha" genre. The same debate might be raised for "can we say Farscape is "a Space Opera set on a spaceship, if spaceships are machines and Moya is organic?" Evangelions should be categorized under wikipedia's "mecha" category because 1-it's not like there's another large category to put it in; we aren't arguing Giant Mecha vs. Real Mecha; instead, the "category" Eva would fit in would be so specific that no one could easily find it. 2-it's clearly meant to be playing on the conventions of the "Giant Mecha" genre, and thus falls in that category.'''  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cybernetic?
In the article the Evas are call cybernetic but (to my knowledge) that word has never been used. Ritsuko used the term “synthetic being” and the manga used biomechanical, so wouldn’t these be better terms?The Twilight Goddess 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those terms (especially Ritsuko's description) might be good to add to the article, but I think "cybernetic" is the best (and simplest) way to describe the Evas since they are cyborgs in the purest sense of the word - beings comprised of both organic and mechanical components. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * They're mostly Angel-clones which then got grafted with all sorts of circuitry and stuff to control them, etc. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Armor changes
'Somewhat decent' is a pretty ambiguous way of describing an armour's effectiveness. I feel justified in describing the limits of its effectiveness. I am, of course, open to constructive criticism. Also, regardless of their classification as mechas, i think it's also important to note the fact that this classification is, indeed, debated.

Minor compared to other eva 'issues' you say, willbyr? So are you fine with classifying whales as fish? Or maybe we should just call them 'obese dolphins'. May i suggest you ask for feedback from other users before making changes based purely on personal bias? 203.54.235.69 06:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My main concern is keeping the amount of material that is "debatable" as low as possible. With NGE, it's impossible to avoid mentioning things that are controversial and spark debate among fans, but in comparison to some of the really major topics, whether or not the Evas are true mecha seems very minor and ticky-tacky.  It's not a huge concern to me, and if others are fine with having a note about it, then that's cool.  I do like your last edit about the Evas' armor, that is much better in terms of tone and descriptiveness than the previous edits. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Point noted. Melody from discord 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Evas in NGE: Battle Orchestra
Can someone that can read kanji go here and verify that the two new Eva units featured in this game are named "The First Type" and "The Second Type", as is suggested in the game's article? The other link in the article is to a gaming blog that doesn't seem to give any really useful information. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

 * They are more or less called The First and Second. There's no mentioning of a "type" Anyhow, these two new EVA units are named after the Celestial stem. So i don't know if my romanization is completely correct. --Refuteku (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removal
Why was the image of Unit 01 deleted? I thought I had the fair use covered on all the images, especially the screenshots from the series... Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was an admin mistake. I am in the process of correcting it.  With a little luck it should be back soon. --Pekaje 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The images for Evangelion: Death and Rebirth and The End of Evangelion were also removed; will these be fixed as well? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they will, but it will unfortunately take some time, as references to the deleted images have often been removed from the articles, so now I have to go through a batch of some 30 images accidentally deleted by an admin (not all of which have been undeleted yet) to see if I can find where they originally belonged. If you find any other that have been deleted in this way, by all means let me know where they belonged. --Pekaje 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally got through them all. Certainly one of those things you don't want happening too often ... :-) --Pekaje 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In need of copyediting...
Assuming you all have desires to see this article advance, I'd recommend significant copy editing, particularly in light of WP:LEAD. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point...as I get time, I'll see what I can do about working on the lead section. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about non-free image removal
For the discussion about culling excessive non-free images from the Evangelion articles, see here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What lovely teeth you have
I'm not quite sure how to word it and I'm uncertain whether it's worth pointing out, but Unit 00 is the only Eva that never opens its mouth. I thought that was a bit odd. Hellbus (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd never thought about that, but you're right...I don't think it's enough to warrant a mention in the article unless a sourced discussion is somewhere out there, but it's an interesting point. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tinkered a bit with what V5 added, and I think it works pretty well. Hellbus (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some have just waved their hand and said "that doesn't mean it doesn't have teeth"...but really, if you look at the "failed Eva prototypes" in End of Eva...some of them clearly have teeth and some don't appear to have conventional "mouths"...leaving us to speculate at the exotic appearance of Eva-00. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename
i think a better name should be suited for this article. i suggest we name it "List of Mechas in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Sound good to all of you?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Jet Alone and the Trident are covered in the NGE glossary article. I see no pressing need to muddy this article by moving those two mecha here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we summarize the glossary by moving items to a more better suited area then we mightmove all articles to GA. which is WP:EVA's goal is it not? Anyways, are you in favor of the name change?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 * But what makes this a better location? I can understand the reasoning - 'let's put all the robot thingies in one place', but I see the case as being 'let's put all the quasi-Angels (Evangelions) in one place, and the actual robots in another'. --Gwern (contribs) 21:12 27 December 2009 (GMT)

For now this article will be solely dedicated to EVAS. other objects that are not EVAS do not come in unless related to EVAS. the original plan was to organize the article and remove unnecessary details. Considering the evangelions or quasi-Angels are more known as "EVAS" i think we should name is list of EVAS of NGE.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is going to remain solely for the Evas, then I don't see a need to rename it. The current title has done just fine for quite a while now; it's simple, explicit about what the subject matter is, and even a cursory examination of the opening paragraph will let readers unfamiliar with the term know that NGE is the series that they come from.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the name is confusing. Also we could put this as a List article, so list of EVAs in NGE is a better title. Evangelion (mecha) would be confusing and the word Evangelion is also one of the names of the series and albums. the Evangelions are also so most commonly known as "EVAs" in both the anime and to the public. Evangelion (mecha) would be confusing

If we can, we can add the weapons EVAs use onto here if possible.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to how the title is confusing. The "(mecha)" clearly designates that that's what the article is talking about, and "Evangelion" is more technically correct than "Eva" or "EVA" (which, if I remember right, wouldn't be able to be used in the title of the article anyway because of the formatting rules).  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

true, but like i said, it's more appropriate to go by "list of NGE [insert here]" or "List of [insert here] in neon genesis evangelion". it's the same reason why Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) was moved to List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. merely saying (mecha) in the end wont help.

also, the title insist in being singular rather than plural. Which might make some or all readers believe that the article is about only one evangelion, or that only one exist in the entire NGE series. that's why "list of NGE evangelion" or "list of NGE Evangelions" would be most appropriate, considering that the name is much more clearer and easier to understand.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What about "List of mechas in Neon Genesis Evangelion?" This could take care of the article covering both the Eva units and Jet Alone, etc. Hellbus (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 * that was my first proposal. i guess the article can be about mechas rather than evangelions. does anyone agree?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (doing a bit of a flip-flop) I'm of two minds on this.  I like having the Evas with their own article and the Jet Alone and Trident as part of the glossary article, but at the same time, after some consideration of the structure of the article, it might be better off converted to a "list of mecha" article and thus including the Jet Alone and the Trident...hmmm.  If the consensus is to convert the article to a list, I'm not gonna grouse about it.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What I like about the current article and title is that it clearly conveys that it's a specific important NGE concept; 'list' just sounds like a grab-bag of random material, with no focus, theme, or unifying idea. And bringing in Jet Alone and Trident lumps them in with things they shouldn't be lumped in with. Any Eva is more important than those 2 put together (they have zero relevance to the overall plot). --Gwern (contribs) 14:25 12 January 2010 (GMT)

i had thought the same about the main article, but everyone disagreed (not including that IP). it's not as clear as you think. like i said before the name is singular, not plural, which would confuse some people seeing as how there are many articles named "Evangelion". 'List' is more than just listing, you would mention concept designs, terminology or other. the thing is, this article is already in a form of list. Also EVAs are important, but that would be opinion. they are just giant beings people ride on. adding all mechas here wouldn't hurt. we could divide them into sections, evangelions in one, and trident and jet alone in "other", and why shouldn't they be lumped together? they are all mechas. It's just like List of Hollows in Bleach, even though the list talks about hollows in general, there is more mention of Arrancars because they have had great importance in the plot, while other hollows that have obtained notability to be mentioned are merely in "other". Same could work here.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It's not opinion that Evas are important; they're discussed in a tremendous fraction of critical reception & appraisal, and receive a great deal of attention from the creators themselves. I mean, come on - it's a mecha series after all, the mechas are going to be important. If they weren't, it'd be a funny mecha series.
 * As for what the Bleach people do, I dunno. I don't know anything about Bleach beyond the first few dozen episodes which I bothered to watch, so I don't know that their choice of organization is relevant to an Eva article. --Gwern (contribs) 22:09 16 May 2010 (GMT)

 * One, I can't take you're word for it is what i meant so it's you're opinion. verify that they are enough to have their very one article only to evangelions, and then we'll see. A list of Mecha would be more ideal for trident and others. Or make another Mecha article and a Evangelion subsection. We can't have the Evangelion glossary have every single detail about the series. i'm not entirely sure it passes notability. sure it has a number of refs for certain topics in the glossary, but it doesn't compare to the rest. Some of the topics would have to be merged here or other articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 * List of hollows in bleach was more of an example. not meant to be related to the article directly03:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Kanji
After removing some trivial and original research info on the Details section (which i might change the section title for something more broad), i see now that the kanji isn't a separate name form the English name. therefore i will but nihongo templates onto the names. I also removed heavy original research and some trivial information that will not help the sections. there is still some original research but left it in because i thought it could be verified.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also evangelions are most commonly known as EVA not evangelions. So I'll change all of it to EVA. And i do need a little help finding Evangelion kanji.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Are they known that way? Consider:

 * CSE hits:
 * "EVAs"
 * "Evangelions"
 * Unfiltered Google:
 * "EVAs"
 * "Evangelions"

 * Regardless of which pair you pick, "Evangelions" seems to be the more common plural - which makes sense since "EVA" is not an acronym and is easily confused with the common SF/space term EVA. --Gwern (contribs) 22:16 16 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm not so sure, but EVAs seem to be more known for in google and i'm not so sure how to use CSE hits. Anyways, in-universe they are most commonly known as EVAs aswell. i hardly heard the term "evangelion" within the seriesBread Ninja (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Alright, let's assume that 'Evangelion' is a rare term in the series. You're still wrong to favor 'EVA' over 'Eva':

[07:54 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVA literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc 41    371    3340 [07:55 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Eva literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc 285   2506   22358

[07:55 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVA adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc 0      0       0 [07:56 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Eva adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc 291   2434   22674

[07:57 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVAs adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc 0      0       0 [07:57 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Evas adv-platinum/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc 51    413    4053

[08:25 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R EVAs literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'EVANGELION'|wc 3     36     275 [08:25 PM] 0Mb$ fgrep -R Evas literal-translationp/*|grep -v 'Evangelion'|wc 19    174    1475
 * --Gwern (contribs) 00:26 20 May 2010 (GMT)

i'm not trying to assume anything other than what is shown in front of me. But anyways, it doesn't matter if they are all caps or not. i thought in the subs, they were shown with all caps. Plus i thought EVA was written in there capsules aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You're not trying to assume something, but then you seem to assume something about the subs. Hm...
 * Why should we use 'EVA'? It's not an acronym. It's not more correct. It's not easier to read. It's not easier to write. It's not more common, as I've already demonstrated. --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 28 May 2010 (GMT)

acronyms usually have periods under them. i'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, please assume good faith. I don't think it matters whether its easier to write and Easier to read is matter of opinion. You seem to ignore the sub and capsule statement. but again, it doesn't really matter. so your last post was just unecessaryBread Ninja (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

what i mean by "it doesn't matter", i'm basically saying it's alright to change it to Eva. but we can't ignore that there are results with them being referred to EVA so it should still be mentioned in there.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Acronyms quite frequently have no periods, not that I can see how periods are relevant. ('NASA'. 'FEMA'. 'BP'. 'USA'. 'UK'. 'ROK'.) But if you want to mention somewhere that they are sometimes called 'EVAs', knock yourself out. --Gwern (contribs) 22:41 28 May 2010 (GMT)
 * I'm just saying not everything is an acronym just because it's call Caps. there's also project EVA, the series name is in all caps. so i tihnk it's pretty safe to include it in as jsut one mention of it.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculation regarding Unit 08
There are some fan speculation about the sudden appearance of this Eva. More specifically, it has been noted that Unit 08's head armor is somewhat similar to Unit 01's godlike form at the Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0 finale. There are rumors that it might actually be Unit 01 in a different armor to restrain it, like what the tons of bandages were used for in episode 20. Can anyone confirm or refute that? If it turns out to be untrue then it will most likely be piloted by either Mari or Rei since they both lost their respective Evas (Unit 05 is gone completely while Unit 00 only has a pair of legs left - WAY beyond the Hayflick limit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.147.118.135 (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only real way to confirm or refute any of it is to wait for the third film to be released. Hellbus (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True. Maybe the film will also confirm whether the similarity of the Mark.06 to the old Lilith is accidental or the Eva was derived from it, similarly to Unit 01.--89.147.118.135 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the subtitles in 2.22 are to be believed, then the 'quickening' of Unit 08 is its 'birth' making it a different Eva than Unit 01. How much different is to be determined. However it may be Unit 01 being 'reborn' so to speak, and i think that is what people are guessing, if perhaps falsely. I personally believe its is merely when it is going to make its debut appearance and people are reading too much into it but Evangelion has thrown me through a loop on more than one occasion. TheEncounter —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

 * Well, there is no room for speculation here in wikipedia. That's why i have removed almost half of the information in some of these articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New Rebuild information
Added all the Evas that appear in 3.0 and gave them their own section; as the film just came out, there aren't many (if any) options for citing sources yet. Still, make sure any information you might add is actually in the film because there's lots of misleading speculation among non-Japanese sources; that will most likely remain so until the official English release which is not announced yet.--Amitakartok (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Evangelion (mecha). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630193917/http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/ to http://www.advfilms.com/titles/evangelion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evangelion (mecha). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202123427/http://www.evacommentary.org/images_production/ryousanki_design.gif to http://www.evacommentary.org/images_production/ryousanki_design.gif

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Evangelion Test Type-01 at the site of Shanghai Metallurgical & Mine Machinery Factory.jpg

GOCE copyedit request
Most of the changes make sense to me, but this still isn't clear: Is this the legitimate title of the document? It sounds like the general name used. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is how Evangelion Chronicle (vol. 1, p. 26) calls it. Its title is just that: 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (仮) 企画書, or 'New Century Evangelion (Tentative name) Proposal'. Shortened in the sources as simply 'Proposal' (e.g. Newtype 100% Collection, p. 85).TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I changed it to the full name. Interesting source. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evangelion (mecha)


text: User talk:68.208.204.7

title: User talk:68.208.204.7


text: User talk:205.200.236.19

title: User talk:205.200.236.19


text:
R$

R$ may refer to:

 * Brazilian real, the official and current currency of Brazil
 * Rhodesian dollar, the former currency of Rhodesia
 * Robux, the currency on the video game site in Roblox

title: R$


text: User talk:151.198.82.3

title: User talk:151.198.82.3