Talk:Nerv Headquarters

I suggest that Central Dogma and Terminal Dogma be merged into this. --Reichu 23:40, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

I think they're significant enough as to merit their own pages. Meanwhile, why is it spelled "Headquarters" with a capital "H" now? (Not that I'm complaining, it looks nicer that way). --V 09:41, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's hard to write about Nerv HQ without mentioning Central Dogma, because a lot (most?) of the active Nerv HQ facility is IN Central Dogma.

Terminal Dogma has most of the more "esoteric" crap... but ultimately it's just another section of HQ.

It's "Headquarters" because this is a place. Hence, proper noun. --Reichu 10:16, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Er, well I guess we could expand them if they get big enough. I just found out that it doesn't work when I try to redirect a link to a specific subsection (for example, going to "Nerv-01" just redirects to "Nerv" instead of "Nerv-01" subsection in the Nerv article. --V 10:19, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

We should bring that up with OMF. --Reichu 16:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok we haven't talked about this since last August, when a lot of people weren't here: should "Central Dogma" be merged into the main "Nerv HQ" page? I'd kind of assumed we'd have a small subheader for each then "for more info, see main article "Central Dogma". Or, would you like to keep it one article now, but with the possibility of branching them off again later if/when the page gets too large (as Nerv HQ is the primary setting of much of the series, I think the article will logically eventually grow to enormous proportions). Thoughts everyone?--V 17:19, 11 February 2008 (PST)

Freudian Appearance

Okay, maybe this is one too many times watching the Da Vinci Code, but I assumed that "Pyramid" = Phallus shape, and "inverted pyramid" = vagina. Of course, I'm thinking of it in terms of a cross-section seen from the side, not a "bird's eye" view.--V 17:58, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

I was going by the pyramid's placement at the top of the opening. --thewayneiac Sept. 24, 2007. 21:17 EDT.

I really don't see it. I mean maybe if it were seen at a different angle (pyramid always at the top or something) but I always just saw "pyramid" --V 21:33, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

Pyramid-shaft...I never understood why it was like that. It's about as freudian as Shamshel looks like a phallus, crazy thinking. No freudian imagery there.--UrsusArctos 23:37, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

I'd recommend dropping the "freudian appearance" note. The feed-back on this assertion (here and in the episode commentary) suggest that it is hardly blatant; instead most people look at it and say, "Um, sorry, I just don't see it..." --Shin-seiki 07:05, 25 September 2007 (PDT)

OK, I fixed the problem with the usual weasel words. --thewayneiac Sept. 25, 2007 17:22 EDT.

I removed it altogether. It doesn't obviously look like "female genitalia" anymore than I thought the trench was "vagina" and the pyramid was "phallus shape". If it's that subjective and not obvious enough...it shouldn't be listed here as that makes it look like a fact. --V 19:54, 25 September 2007 (PDT)

Should we split this off into a Theory and Analysis page of some sort? I'm kind of iffy on using "possibly Freudian" because that's treating it like a fact, and we should demarcate fact and analysis more clearly...--V 17:39, 11 February 2008 (PST)

You mean something like listing it as a possible sighting on a "Vaginas of Evangelion" page? That's more up Reichu's alley than mine. Maybe we could prevail upon her to start such a page. --thewayneiac 22:46 EST. Feb. 11, 2008

No, I was thinking something more specific, or something...--V 12:21, 12 February 2008 (PST)

Why?

Why does it require clean up? How do we clean it up? It looks fine, the way it is. Perhaps some missing information...? --Bee-Zerk 18:48, 27 February, 2008 (AEST)

I think I need to clean up the way V's written the part about the Eva pens. The layout of Nerv HQ is pretty self-contradictory at times, such as in Episode 13. I need to rephrase a lot of that. --UrsusArctos 23:52, 26 February 2008 (PST)

Rebuild

I'd like to fill in the Rebuild section a bit. Is comparison with the original series something that should be withheld in the section? I'm unsure if it would be better for the page/section to compare the differences or to have it stand alone without reference to the past. --Yammm (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include it here. In most pages there's a rebuild section that also mentions differences.

Please do it. I would recommend that you first do a description of what's new in the Rebuild version and then move on for any direct comparisons. Details that are the same you can skip as it would be redudant to include in. - RussianRiz (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (BRT)

Will do. Thanks for the tip. That sounds like a good way to go about it. --Yammm (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)