Talk:Elfen Lied/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Seems to be Lacking

I just finished watching the series and the ending being as it is, I came to the Wiki to see if links where provided or if it was at all mentioned a la The Sopranos finale. So, maybe so much not the main article, as there should be articles for the individual episodes, especially since it seems each episode seems to have a lot of continuity points that could be made. Not so much for breaking it, but for-shadowing and the such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanstillcu (talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 August 2007

Cultural references missing?

the mention of the poem is still there, but the article on the opening scene borrowing/ussing posses from paitings are gone' what happenen ? did someone delete the bit about the paitings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillTheWitch (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 October 2007

B-Class/C-Class

Could whoever ranked down the article please explain which criteria we are failing to meet. As far as I can see this is still as B-Rank article. (and why the serious attention? I think we've got some good people on this article right now). --Kraftlos (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was automatically reassessed to C-Class (along with all other B-Class articles in the animanga project's scope) by the project banner after implementing C-Class and some related stuff. Collectonian should be able to look the article over and mark it back up to B-Class if it meets the necessry criteria (I'd do it myself, but I'm still not comfortable with my own understanding of the criteria). As for the "serious atention", that's one of the other features recently added to the banner. It doesn't actually mean anything urgent, it just lets us sort this article - and others with the same parameter set in the banner - into a project-specific maintenance category. This particular parameter was added to augment/replace the functionality of the {{expert}} and {{expert-subject}} banners. —Dinoguy1000 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I was just hoping it could get more than a cursory glance. This article's accessme t is constantly being watched, it wasnt really needing to be reaccessed. The article still has balance issues and I'm still not going to be comfortable writing about the manga until I'm done with a substantial part of it.

And I agree with the change in the expert opinion tag. I think it makes more sense when you word it this way. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Character Section

I've always been a bit confused by this, but we have a small character section on the main page and then the whole character article. Is this content supposed to be identical or should it be different? Do we even need a character section if we have a main article? How should we approach this?--Kraftlos (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Due to WP:SS, a short section of the branched-off section (in this case the character list) should be kept in the main article after the split. I myself have gotten into the habit of doing a major characters section with a couple paragraphs in the main article if the character list has already been split; examples at Air (visual novel) and Soul Eater (manga).--十八 09:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Song of the Maid... or maid.

Greetings all,

I have been reading through this article for a while now, and judging by the present condition and tags applied, it seems appropriate to revise it. This will help make the contained information broader, concise and ultimately more resourceful; which I have already begun a rough draft on. This comment is in place so that another immature, overemotional and rather disrespectful response, from my previous School Days edit, does not occur again.

If you have any comments, please feel open to casually post them.

Valce (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... I have no clue what any of that vacuity was supposed to mean. You're wanting to edit the page? Go for it. You don't need our permission. --erachima talk 00:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When you edit it, please conform to WP:MOS-AM on the structure and layout of the article, and other guidelines set out at WP:MOS and WP:MOS-JP. Not to mention the use of citation templates like {{cite web}}. Also, do not add any unnecessary tables or lists if prose would be better.--十八 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong plot

It seems that the plot summarizes the anime's events. As the manga came first, and as it has been done with all other manga/anime articles I have seen, the plot should focus on the manga, with differences being more fully explained in the next section. --Unsigned comment by 219.182.170.179 (talk · contribs)

We're aware of this, it's just that no one's taken the time yet to rewrite the plot section according to the manga. —Dinoguy1000 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In my case, I'm still reading through the manga so I can't really do a proper re-write without knowing what's different. I think english-language fans of the series are typically more familiar with the anime, so the article was created with a rather heavy anime-bias. It's a work in progress. :P --Kraftlos (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll help out with fixing this as well. The very first lines mention the manga but the next section goes into the anime plot which is a bit different.Realitychecksme (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I finished reading the Manga - sad ending - but I'm busy adding to the wikia on it.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead changing it completely towards the manga, it would be better to just add in a subsection, and regarding the anime ending as an alternate ending. And I wouldn't call the manga ending sad - touching maybe, but not sad. Zijian (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

horn-like temporal protrusions

this is the "scientific" term given in the anime, but the temple is behind the eyes, the horn-things stick out much too hie. My guess is that it really means from the temporal lobe, not just the bone. What the manga says about it? I doute they made a mistake with this.--217.112.178.191 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The manga and the anime call them horns throughout the whole series. I think it does say something about Diclonius having larger or different temporal lobes, but it really doesn't explain it thoroughly. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Diclonius section (delete?)

I'm having trouble with this section, it appears to largely be original synthesis from the manga and anime. I'm tempted to just throw it out, since a lot of this is already explained in the plot section and character list. Any objections --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, I object. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

None from me, the plot summary needs to be rewritten anyways. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of the German word "Lied"

I changed the word "lied" in the first paragraph to "Lied", but it was changed again with the comment "It shouldn't be capitalized". Why? Like every other German noun "Lied" does begin with a capital letter. --Joe

lied, which literally means "song", is a common noun. Common nouns are almost never capitalized unless it is part of a title or the first word of a sentence. Just because a word is form another language doesn't mean it should be capitalized. --Farix (Talk) 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The word should not be capitalized because it is from another language, but because this is how it is written in that language. The article talks about "the German word lied", but there simply is no word in the German language that is written that way. If there should be any rule that says it should nonetheless be written like that in wikipedia, I suggest also changing the corresponding Lied wikipedia article. --Joe

WP:MOSCAPS states that all unnecessary capitalization should be avoided except for proper nouns, acronyms, and initialisms. This applies equally to non-English and English terms. The only reason you gave so far for supporting capitalization is that it is a German term. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Aagain, there is no such thing as a "German word lied". Correcting this error is no "unnecessary capitalization". Please also have a look at the Lied wikipedia article. --Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.56.69 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, written natural language doesn't use capitalization to convey intrinsic or grammatical meaning (i.e. there's no difference between "swimming pool" and "Swimming Pool", other than stylistic) - we aren't using Klingon, after all. While it may be stylistically incorrect in German to write "lied" with a lowercase "l", it has no effect on the meaning of the word - German speakers seeing it in a text would experience no ambiguity as to the word's meaning. Your argument has no weight to it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of words do change in the German language in context to capitalization, e.g. "Stecken" and "stecken". Nevertheless there is no such thing as a "German word lied", which means there is no ambiguity but still an error. WP:MOSCAPS states that "Capital letters are sometimes a matter of regional differences. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context." The context is explicitly given by refering to it as a "German word". Please also have a look at the Lied wikipedia article. --Joe

I'd like to propose an edit. First, let's place a period at the end of Elfenlied, and do without the rest of the sentence. After all, to say that the name of the manga Elfen Lied comes from the poem Elfenlied is sufficient, and no reference to the musical term or the German word is necessary. Second, Elfenlied should be in quotation marks instead of italics. That's correct WP:STYLE for songs and other shorter works, such as (most) poems. In this way, we could avoid the whole Lied vs. lied question here, although I expect I'll be discussing that topic at Lied. Do we have a consensus for my proposed edit, or are there objections? ReverendWayne (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Change made. This seems reasonable as the last part did seem tacked on and entirely out of place. --Farix (Talk) 02:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Readability did improve by that and all relevant information is still given. --Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.55.15 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this seems to have been covered above, it also seems that a number of users involved in the conversation didn't understand that this entire section revolved around proper grammar. You could make the argument for natural or spoken dialect not having capitalisation, but this is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia; a proper encyclopedia would use proper grammar regardless of what language the text was written in, and this quite frankly is a large part of the reason Wikipedia isn't respected in the academic community. As a standalone word, being a noun, "Lied" should be capitalised; in a compound noun, only the first letter of the entire term ("Elfenlied" in the case of the poem) need be capitalised. Another point to consider is the capitalisation of the source works rather than just what you would assume to be proper: you wouldn't change the title of a song the credited band called "THE End of aLL" to "The End of All" just to suit what a web administrator told you was their way of doing things, right? From what I've read above, it would seem "lied" (which is grammatically incorrect) was being used as a separate word, thus ignoring grammar in both language and respect for source works and tarnishing what little credibility this resource once had. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia does occasionally have some decent information, but for anything formal it's useless due to the lack of integrity and credibility. Unfortunately, little is being done to change this due to people being stubborn and undoing changes that were constructive and valid simply because they're ignorant on the matter and think because they're a longer-term user or that they have some other sort of false status in an Internet community that they have the right to do so. Just some thoughts on the subject that I hope will gradually change things and clear up any misconceptions. I should also hope this shows why having too many policies just needlessly complicates things, especially when the policies are added after an article is considered to be correct under old policy but not under new (I've seen it happen numerous times and the resulting argumentative spam on the talk pages, while amusing, seems to be unnecessary clutter in the site's database.) --71.74.228.230 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Title

Aparently there's been a re-release of the DVD's and the second one has been titled Elfen Lied:Diclonius report. I haven't heard this title before, is this really series title or just a title used for this release of the DVD's? Cause the first release was just called Elfen Lied. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably just a re-release. The ending of the Anime series stopped the continuation of the Manga series, thus a season 2 is highly unlikely.-- OsirisV (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A h* vs An h*

The A/An article lacks citations, only listing three references at the bottom, two of which are available online, with only one of those looking remotely reliable (the Purdue article), which actually states that although "an h___" is usually considered acceptable in spoken English, "a h___" is often considered more appropriate for written English. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference in rule for Written and Spoken English. I would say "he made an honourable decision" with the "h" silent. That means that, linguistically, the word begins with an "O". However, this is passed on to the written form, ie. "Half an hour".-- OsirisV (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. I'd advise looking at the referenced sources before putting your word in. Purdue source. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might want to look the word up in the dictionary, as it can be pronounced with the h as well (1, 2). Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd want to check other Manuals of Style to see if there's widespread support for differing usage in the written form, but in this case I think the real problem is the word homage, which seems to have an unusually problematic pronunciation. I'll ask some proofreaders I know, since I'm curious, but maybe we should just avoid the damn word entirely. Save us all an argument over things nobody agrees on anyway. Doceirias (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And it would save having to put this on WP:LAME.--十八 04:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Purdue source you cite explicitly refutes your position in one of its headers: "Remember, using a or an depends on the sound that begins the next word." The only instance of potential difference between spoken and written English it offers is in regards to the word "historical", which to my ear, always takes a predominant "h" sound anyways, justifying "a" over "an". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your selective reading. You completely disregarded our discussion about the pronunciation of the word, which can be pronounced with the hard "h" at the beginning. Doceirias already pointed out quite explicitly that the real problem lies with the pronunciation of the word and how it should be handled because of it. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you do, I work quite hard at it. =P Personally, I always pronounce, and imagine pronouncing, "homage" with an almost-silent "h", which justifies the "an"; however, I'm fine with replacing it altogether here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As am I, but it's very frustrating to have someone ignore presented arguments in a debate is all. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I risk restarting this debate, Wiktionary says that "an" is used before a vowel sound: "An MG42 is a stationary machine gun that was used by the Wehrmacht in the second world war," for example. The "h" in some words is so light that it sounds like a lowercase "o" - a vowel.-- OsirisV (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lucy's name

It's possible that Lucy was named after the 3.2 million year old skeleton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus), if some one could add that

Do you have a reliable source stating that? Otherwise, it's original research. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If a credible source pointing to a deliberate connection between the two can be found, then perhaps it will be added. In the meantime, I think that such a supposition should be left out. Amimizunofan22 (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No direct source exists within either the manga or the anime. That said, the manga conclusion confirms that Lucy was no more her true name than was Nyu. Only people from the Diclonius Research Institute ever referred to her by that name. The leading villain of the series was a man obsessed with the origins of Human evolution. A statement with the qualifier that it cannot be confirmed should be enough. So long as it is not presented as indisputable fact, I think room exists. Gojirob (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Elfen Lied should also be listed as 'Romance' because of the relationship between nyu and kouta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.68.176 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And what is the reliable source stating that this falls into the Romance genre? —Farix (t | c) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i don't think that it needs to be labeled under romance because it already belongs to theseinen genre and i beleive that that covers the romance in it. but if you can prove me wrong then feel free to add it. also if it is not already under the category of seinen then maybe someone should add that. zeroro(talk)(edits) 09:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, do you think the genre of "action" should be added as one of the genres? Because there are quite a few action/fight scenes in both the manga and anime and I feel that they are significant enough to the main story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvan Dreams (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong spelling

I think we should add the fact that “Elfen Lied” is spelled wrong. After the German spelling rules it has to be “Elfen-Lied” or “Elfenlied”. -- Flo27 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That claim would actually be original research and bare no relevance to the subject of the article. --—Farix (t | c) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Theme Song vs. Elfinlied (the song)

I'm not up to date on standards and citation guidelines, so I'll just put this out here for someone who knows better to add to the article. The name of the song in the opening is "Lilium", and the song is in Latin. The current text makes it seem like the German song "Elfinlied" is the theme song, although it doesn't explicitly state it so (so its not wrong, just misleading). Lilium isn't mentioned in the text at all, except as being the engraving on the music box (which plays Elfinlied, I think they're just TRYING to confuse us!) and as being the last word of the theme.

My only personal research was following the link to Elfinlied (the song)'s wiki entry and finding the footnote at the bottom explaining that while this song appears in the anime Elfin Lied and is where the title came from, the actual theme song for the anime is Lilium. It makes more sense to me to find at least the name of the theme song to the anime in the anime's entry, rather than in a footnote on another song that happened to be in the same anime.

~gatherer818 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.186.163 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

this deosn't have to do with the article but i think it should be noted that the music box does in fact play lilium. i have no official source but i have listened to the both the theme song and the tune of the music box several times.zeroro(talk)(edits) 09:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers

"While the animated series ends with Lucy confronting a large team of SAT members, after which she disappears," Thanks for not giving away the end or anything. I was gonna watch this but I guess not anymore.--174.56.208.236 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Ever see an encyclopedia with spoiler warnings? Yeah. Next you'll be complaining that dictionaries have bad words in them, right? HalfShadow 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ever see an encyclopedia with spoiler warnings?" Yes I have, I think it was called Wiki.....something. I can't remember right now but I'll do some searching and try to find it.--174.56.208.236 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings, and hasn't for many years now. See WP:SPOILER, WP:NDA and WP:DISC.--十八 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm that's not the ending, it ends with lucy apoligizing to kouta for ruining his life, and then trys to leave, then kouta stops her and basically tells her to stay with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.96.52 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pointers for this article

I happened to notice that Elfen Lied was a former Good Article but was demoted. I can clearly see why... the article is a mess! With that I thought I'd provide some advice to anyone looking to clean it up, as I've read the entire manga and watched the anime.

Infobox

• Remove the caption.
• Remove the flag icons
• If ADV dropped the OVA, remove it from "Licensed by:"

Lead: It's good that it's broken into three paragraphs. What constitutes those three paragraphs needs to be rewritten though. Also don't add citations, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, details can be cited later.

• The first paragraph should concisely describe the manga itself, not the anime. Use the infobox for reference. Mention the magazine, the time of circulation, and that it was collected into twelve volumes. Write two sentences summarizing the main plot, like that Lucy is a "murderous teenage mutant" who frees herself from captivity. A second sentence could describe how Kota and Yuka find her and take her in, unaware of her history.

• The second paragraph should describe the production of the manga, the ideas or struggles that Okamoto had in writing or illustrating it, and the general reaction the manga got from fans.

• The third paragraph can describe the anime. Mention how long it aired in Japan, a couple companies outside Japan that localized it, how it incorporates styles such as Gustav Klimt's artwork, and that the series became notorious for its graphic violence.

Plot Too short and kinda clumsy. Doesn't go in-depth about why Lucy was in captivity, how she escaped, what caused her to develop a split-personality, or where she's found. "Other characters include" feels rushed. No one but Lucy, Kota and Yuka should appear in the plot since Kuruma isn't fleshed out until later on. Cite pages from the manga for reference.

Characters Goes into far too much detail. If there is a separate article for characters than the profiles here need to be succinct, with citations to back them up.

Production This section talks primarily about the anime, not the manga. At least half of this section should talk about Okamoto's work on the manga, getting it serialized, that he was approached about turning it into an anime, etc. The second portion can be about the anime. Lots more citations.

Media A manga article doesn't need a manga subsection. The information that's here would be better off in the lead's first paragraph.

Anime First paragraph has no citations. Third paragraph is also lacking citations.

Difference between media No citations.

Hope some of these pointers help. Valce Talk 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Genres revisited

I noticed the article belongs to the categories "Category:Horror anime and manga" and "Category:Science fiction anime and manga" but these are not in the infobox. I agree with both; but I think changing "Category:Science fiction anime and manga" to "Category:Science fantasy anime and manga" is more appropriate. Also I would classify it as Harem, based on the fact that the male protagonist lives with 5 females and sexual situations arise throughout. Xfansd (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

seinen is also a genre that it fits into and should be added to the info box. zeroro(talk)(edits) 09:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Seinen is a demographic and is already in the infobox.--十八 09:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction or Science Fantasy?

Now, some say that it's science fantasy although I strongly disagree since I don't see any fantastic elements (multiple dimensions, magic, gods and demons actually existing, etc.) and that the Diclonius were a product of genetic manipulation (which is clearly not a fantastic element either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.186.82.246 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the science fantasy article, there are various definitions that could apply to the genre, but I think the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Science fantasy vs. science fiction section says it well: "science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy does." How the Diclonii use vectors is certainly something I would consider supernatural. The Diclonii themselves may have been the product of science, but no level of science could produce the things they're able to do with vectors, hence it's science fantasy.--十八 20:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Juhachi stated exactly my reasoning, the vectors are supernatural thus leading to science fantasy. Also about the "Category:Genetic engineering in fiction", I don't know how you got the idea that the Diclonius are created through genetic manipulation, they just started being born and then it spread like a "virus". They were then captured and experimented on but none were "created", the scientists were actually trying to stop it. Xfansd (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's that so, I mean the Doom series is a sci-fi/horror game yet it has supernatural elements in it such as demons, hell, and the Soul Cube, so shouldn't that also be classified as science fantasy? Also with Gantz because that's a sci-fi series yet it has supernatural elements in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.186.82.246 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never played any of the Doom games, but after reading a little of the games' articles, I say absolutely it should be science fantasy. I say no to Gantz as it deals with aliens, which many scientists consider plausible. But those are discussions for the Doom and Gantz talkpages, not here. Xfansd (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Call of Duty's Nazi Zombies and Quake and possibly the 5th game since Id's looking back at making the 5th one be like the first one (for Quake 1 & possibly 5) since many of its elements heavily adapt from the H.P. Lovecraft works, specifically the Cthulhu Mythos. And possibly Hellsing since it has a lot of supernatural elements in it whilst it is listed as Science Fiction, and Science Fantasy states that it has to be sci fi with either fantasy or supernatural elements mixed with the sci fi elemtents. Gantz might have supernatural elements in it so it could be considered science fantasy. Don't know if Borderlands can be considered one since the BBFC mentioned in its summary of the game's classification that it takes place "within a clear fantasy context.".

Just because those series may or may not be correctly classified as science fantasy doesn't mean Elfen Lied also has to be incorrectly classified as science fiction in lieu of science fantasy.--十八 02:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also should mention that because it has both fantasy and horror elements in it, it should also be classified as Dark fantasy.

I really wouldn't call this series horror; it may be gory at parts, but that's it really.--十八 03:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also a horror series, and given that it has so-called fantasy elements in it, it should also be classified as Dark fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.174.193.27 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"kohta" name

A while ago i changed the name of "Kohta" to Kouta because i googled it and it said that it was, but somebody reverted it . Also if you look, even in the link it is spelled that way. So why was it reverted, and was i right or wrong about this? Zeroro (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Elfen Lied/Archive 2#Kouta vs Kōta. But long story short, we use the official spelling in English-speaking sources, which in this case is Kohta per how it was spelling in the English localization of the anime.--十八 09:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)