Talk:Second Impact

From EvaWiki
Revision as of 05:24, 1 May 2009 by Reichu (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Eh? What the blazes is all this, V? What have you done to this page? --UrsusArctos 02:52, 20 December 2007 (PST)

Quotes make things look spiffy. --V 09:33, 23 December 2007 (PST)
This is an encyclopedia. They're unnecessary fluff. --Reichu 10:57, 24 December 2007 (PST)
Quotes from the series then? Yeah I admit the biblical quote was kind of out there. --V 11:06, 24 December 2007 (PST)
No. No quotes at all. Fluff, like I said. --Reichu 11:26, 24 December 2007 (PST)
You mean you even want the one gone from the "Evangelions" article? But quotes make things look shiny (so long as they're from within the show). --V 12:28, 24 December 2007 (PST)
Any which ones. "Shiny" is irrelevant. If it's important, it'll be in the article itself, not floating on top taking up space. Savvy? --Reichu 12:34, 24 December 2007 (PST)
Don't make me start crying....don't....oh, too late......well are you sure? The Star Trek Wiki uses quotes for stuff like Klingons: --V 14:18, 24 December 2007 (PST)


Guoooo! Quotes again? By the way, the total death toll was three billion, so Adam was technically responsible, directly or indirectly, for getting rid of half of mankind and not a third. The quotation might be spiffy but it does not exactly seem correct in context- not to mention that it would peddle the idea that "Eva is religious propaganda" to a newcomer.--UrsusArctos 17:38, 23 December 2007 (PST)

"Eva is religious propaganda", well yeah; what did you think I was trying to do? :) Yes, but the bible quote using a "third" is misleading because it was really a half....hmm......--V 17:54, 23 December 2007 (PST)


Well, I got a good start at least. --thewayneiac 21:09 EDT. April 30, 2009

Pat on the back, man. That's much better. What ought to happen next is distilling the speculation from what the show and our sources actually say -- there isn't enough of a distinction at the moment. Just for an example: at no point is it stated that Seele heard about Second Impact in their scroll-thingies, though it can be posited as a possibility, if stated the right way. CI material should also get the <ref> treatment; anybody who hasn't memorized the Sacred Doctrine yet is surely wondering where the hell we came up with this stuff (in this article, or in the multitude of other articles where it gets spouted). --Reichu 22:24, 30 April 2009 (PDT)