Talk:Ghost in the Shell

Hong Kong in the first film. Why do you list false information?

The name of the city is NIIHAMA(新浜). It is not Hong Kong.

The stage is Japan by the original Japanese version. 60.33.34.133 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote Lead

Hi guys, I rewrote the lead and I was hoping some people could take a look and make any suggestions. I based the new lead on other featured anime/manga pages. I think it expands but also clarifies, and it adds a much needed section about the English localizations. My goal is to eventually rewrite most of the article. I think this whole subject needs to be looked at objectively, like, this is an encyclopedia, not the GitsWiki haha. I hope some of you agree and are willing to help, thanks. Difeon (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Shirow vs. Shirō

Someone is changing all the instances of "Masamune Shirow" to "Masamune Shirō" in this article. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is the name spelled "Shirō" nor did I find it on any other website at all. Google even corrected it. If you want to discuss it please do it here and we'll work something out, in the meantime I am changing it back since there isn't even an article on "Shirō" and it invalidated the link to Shirow's page. Difeon (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked and I see what you were trying to do. The japanese spelling is "Shirō." However, this is the English article about Ghost in the Shell. Maybe if you want to add his japanese spelling to the article Masamune Shirow, but it is standard on Wikipedia to use English name over Japanese name. Thanks Difeon (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of Japanese or English names. "Shirow" uses a different romanization spelling, but the actual romanization nowadays is "Shirō". His Japanese pen name is 士郎, which can be romanized to either "Shirow" or "Shirō". - M0rphzone (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Refs

i'll be adding reviews of the mangas here. Hopefully they can be used in the article and will get this article to B class.Lucia Black (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• ghost in the Shell (Graphic Novel reporter)
• Ghost in the Shell (Read About Comics)
• Ghost in the Shell (Teen Reads)
• (Comic Book Bin)
• [1]

So far we only have four.Lucia Black (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Used all the reviews so im looking for any mentions within books.

• Ghost in the Shell mention - Anime from Akira to Howl's Moving Castle
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Anime and Memory: Aesthetic, Cultural and Thematic Perspectives
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Billboard
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Billboard Sep 29, 2001
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Billboard Nov 9, 1996
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Beautiful Fighting Girl
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Anime: From Akira to Princess Mononoke
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Mechademia 2: Networks of Desire
• Ghost in the Shell mention - Mechademia 3: Limits of the Human
• wired

Hope they can be used soon.Lucia Black (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Found some interviews. I will be posting them here:

• Interview by Frederick L. Schodt

Hope they are used for the article.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Aw, man...someone rewrote my lead? I thought I did a really good job. I followed other featured anime articles as a model. Retreating to the sandbox now...148.137.224.217 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, this is DiFeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.224.217 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

are you sure? It was too detailed about every aspect of the article. I used Madlax as an example. The lead isnt that long.Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

B-Class?

Im fairly certain this article is B-Class, however ive seen other articles that i previously put B-Class back to C. So just to be safe, i would like an outside opinion on the matter. Is there anything that stopping this article from being B-Class?Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to B-class, if anyone thinks its not upto B-class, please mention it here, and we can work it out.Lucia Black (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN?

Anyone believe this article is ready to be nominated for GA? I know the development section needs expansion but i cant find much so i might just merge it with the manga section.Lucia Black (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

well...just gonna be bold about it. i think i've done alot on my own and i can't really find what it needs up at this point.Lucia Black (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right off the bat, prose and errors jump right out at me here. In the lede, " led by protagonist Major Motoko Kusanagi". Chief Aramaki runs it. Motoko is the field commander.

Setting needs expansion and work.

"The series takes place in the near future, where many people can become cyborgs with prosthetic bodies." - 'where many people can become' sounds off. I think it would be good to put its cyberpunk background in here as well. The society itself is different from our own and should be covered in the setting as well. Spinning off to its own article does not justify a short paragraph like this either.

Story needs work as well. It doesn't adequately cover the events and is particularly hard to follow, the prose isn't wonderful either. "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou." For example.

Also 'Motoko Aramaki' in the second part is confusing. Why did her last name change? Ghost in the Shell 1.5 seems better, but it could use a bit of expansion. The varying names and changes are going to be hard for unfamiliar readers to follow.

It could use a character section, as the article seems lacking without it. The live action film section lacks an update. Will anything ever become of it? I don't know why the anime series isn't covered either. As the hatnote says 'This article is about the media franchise.' It should cover all the media in some form including the video games. This article needs a lot of updating and expansion to cover the material, it really is rather bare bones. I'll put it on hold, but this will take a lot of work to pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can fix to make things clearer and have a more encyclopedic tone. However i cant fix the subjective issues you have with the plot. I dont understand what the issue is with "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou." Her conscioussness merged with the Puppeteer and she woke up in a new prostetic body.

There is no clear reason why her name changed unfortunately, so i cant give much of an answer. The plot of Ghost in the Shell is a bit difficult. The 1.5 plot is the one i personally think looks the worst but at the same time it looks like that because there is no overarching plot that the manga follows so listing the story chapter by chapter is better without saying "Section 9 in their four investigations" So i will be editing that more so it doesnt say "In chapter this" and "In chapter that".

I'm not so sure a "character" section is absolutely necessary for GA status as i noticed many anime and manga articles not have a character section.

Although i would like to add its cyberpunk background, the problem is not much has been revealed in the manga. Plus the articles in there have a lot of Original research and not all of it falls in the same series, in fact most of it falls in the Stand Alone Complex series which is an alternate continuation. So i dont want to add anything thats not necessary and eventually will be removed for original research.

The article is now mainly about the manga since they have been merged hence why reception and development are solely on the manga. The article however does cover all media directly relating to the series but does not over media based on the adaptations based on the manga. For example: It would be trivial to list the soundtracks on the main article if the soundtracks are related more too the film over the manga.

The live action film has hardly any info. This happens quite often. Many producers want to create a live action film of a manga or anime. Should i just say " As of 2013 no news or reports of its progress has surfaced" at the end of it?

I think this was a hasty review considering that the anime series is covered. I dont know why you say it isnt.Lucia Black (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Little personal info here, I love the series. So I've delved into the background and the symbolism and the world of GITS very closely. This article is about the franchise, I'd EXPECT a character section for key figures like Motoko. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex does a better job of covering the relevant material then this article. If I am reading about the franchise I do not think that the key reoccurring characters should require a hop to learn even basic details about them. GA is not explicit in what it must have and what it should have, only that it be both broad and detailed within expectations. Not giving readers key character overviews on the key page is a problem.

Since you do not see my concerns I'll point them out with this sentence. "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou."

She has safe houses or just one? I also thought that she needs no physical body and exists on the net itself. With the dolls (never covered either...) just being physical tools for her. So even here the overview is wrong and critically so.

Tachikomas are also footnoted with half a paragraph dedicated to them, a long icon of the series. They played a role like Data of Star Trek and serve to further the philosophy that GITS pushes so hard.

Also as for the anime and the movies, nothing is mentioned of the top-tier graphics used and how it is still cutting edge even today and really pushed the envelope. Thi→s page is better suited to the manga then to the franchise. It is lacking detailed information on the series, the novels and while it does cover the manga, does nothing to bring up the philosophy and Shirow's vision of the future. It doesn't even gloss over Motoko's gender identity and sexuality matters, it outright ignores them. It ignores political commentary and society issues that are very detailed and are key to the lengthy plot lines. GITS is dialog heavy and extremely philosophical, its not action based and to avoid key elements of what makes the series unique and identifiable is perhaps the single biggest issue I can take with it.

Reliable sources are abound for GITS, its not original research to call it cyberpunk, its not original research to discuss transhumanism. Its part of the plot itself. Attention to detail and the fictional universe's workings are going to be difficult because it is foreign enough to throw most readers a few curveballs, but this page barely scrapes the surface of the franchise and what it truly is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no detailed studies about this that are accessible. Ive searched for these things through constant interviews and reviews of the series. Some of the things (if not most) actually is original research such as her gender identity (again only in her stand alone complex series) and sexuality (there is no such discussion unless by fans).

I feel we need a less bias reviewer.Lucia Black (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You got me. Someone who actually knows something about the series and you are complaining about that? I'm not going to rubberstamp this and give a GA when it doesn't deserve it. Let's take another example. The Laughing Man. Which has its own article on Wiki. The Catcher in the Rye is a key part for Stand Alone Complex. This article doesn't even mention the Laughing Man, let alone the repeated Salinger references. Oh and those come straight from the episodes and the book itself. But you know the official interview is pretty much a reliable source. And while anime news network may not seem super reliable, but the news feed is according to WP:A&M/I. I remember Newtype doing a full thing on GITS as well covering the it and I.G when SAC came out. That is a reliable source. But you can alsouse the interviews like this. [2] Though the original ones on the DVDs and other places are great. Such as this from IG. [3] "I created an episode that was not written in the original manga, and recounted her past. And in order to emphasize her past, I put a love affair in there. Through this process, I finally understood that this mysterious superhuman was actually a real human being with a miserable past. And as a human who was chosen to gain this superhuman power, she probably believes that she has an obligation to use that ability for the benefit of others. This was my conclusion. You know, just as a very talented athlete gives us inspiration through his or her efforts, she is stoically trying to use her capability in her own way." Though you can also get such official 'essays' from IG as well on Cyberbrains and what not. [4] The material and the concepts, the philosophy and the development of the series covers it without going into unreliable resources. You just have to look for it. Though the best ones are in Japanese. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a rubber stamp GA. Im asking for a less bias review. You are giving some help, but at the same time youre asking for information that may not necessarily cover this article's current quality.

Rather youre disapointed this article is about the manga and arguing about how little it covers but actually you're trying to make it into an overall franchise. Your taking this as a Fan and as a fan you assume there is an extensive ammount of coverage. You are focusing on Stand Alone Complex series. This is about the manga (mainly) and which will subsequently mention the other adaptations such as the The film and TV series. Thats why the Plot, Development and Reception and such is directly relating to the Manga.

These elements were not introduced in the manga so i cant cover it in the main article because the article is about the manga. I can add it in and state the Stand Alone Complex series expands on such matters but you're not really asking for that, youre asking for me to put it as the accepted setting of all GITS media in which i can't because each series is different from the other.

So let me make this clear as day....this article is mainly about the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, do not go changing the scope of the article as you did in this diff. [5] It said that this article is about the media franchise. You are changing the scope of the article yet you are keeping in it? That does not seem fair. I began the review about the media franchise, just because you want to change it to the manga doesn't mean I'm going to pass it as it is. Your claim of bias is unfounded and is not constructive when I am trying to assist you. And FYI, people are supposed to have the material when they review something, I happen to own the works and have them on hand, so I am more then well aware that even the plot is incorrect and needs fixing. There are many GITS related articles on Wikipedia and the template reverts back to this one as the main page. If you are going to put one up about the manga, do so on Ghost in the Shell (manga), but don't try and obscure or remove the scope of the article simply because I didn't give the answer you wanted. This review is on the media franchise. You can either fix it or I can fail it, but please do not disrupt Wikipedia to try and make a point again. That falls under WP:POINTY. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What point is there that you claim i'm trying to make? WP:POINT is about disruptive edits in order to make a point. I made that edit not to be disruptive but to clarify. I changed it because at the time manga and the franchise were separated when the media franchise wasnt really notable on its own. None of the manga were either and it wouldnt make sense to have the manga alone without mentioning the rest of its adaptations. Considering the original media of ghost in the shell (the manga) now merged with the franchise mostly made up of manga info, and all adaptations have their own articles, it is only logical and appropriate to make the article mainly about the manga. The scope hasnt changed, only the focus. It still is a media franchise but now primarily about the manga. Also considering each series was developed differently it would be Original Research to assume all three series share the same elements.

Its almost impossible to be about the media franchise alone when it comes to the article because each one has their own article, so all relevant info would go there. It would be redundant to try to compact that info into one article when they are notable on their own. I also have the material of GITS manga and GITS2. The only one im missing is 1.5. If incorrect then it was only interpretted incorrectly.

it may hurt that i use the word "bias" but completely appropriate. You're focused on several in-universe areas that cover their own article.Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Mortal Kombat redirects to the franchise, not to the first game. Much less either of the games with the same name... but I digress. The easiest navigation page for a subject with multiple pages should be the broadest and most wide scoped of all articles, that would be the GITS as a whole as is correctly represented here. The reason why it should be used as this page is obvious from the name, more then one subject traces back to Ghost in the Shell. The manga, the anime, the novel just like Vampire Hunter D is about the whole franchise and not the novel. And more specifically Neon Genesis Evangelion which is not about the anime, but the franchise as well. Do I need to stress the point? Also for Mortal Kombat, I did the GA review for it. That is a very good example of how to do an article on a franchise properly. And yes it links to about 20 different articles from there with its own detailed coverage. Just because an article covers material elsewhere doesn't give a pass on a broad summary of the subject. Earth is a perfect example of that. The GITS franchise is notable, and the material is notable on its own. Just because the series has different stories and characters doesn't mean it isn't related. You do realize the timeline and canon flows, right? They do not have to be all directly connected either, but yes, here is another example of that: Final Fantasy. The games have no relation to each other (exceptions... I know), but Final Fantasy is not about the first game its about the franchise. I'm done beating a dead horse here. The article should be about the franchise as per convention. OK? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

I am guessing from the comments at the Good article pages that a second opinion is sought. I am willing to try and answer any questions that arise if you both agree. At the end of the day however, it will be up to Chris whether he passes the article or not. If you can't collaborate then the best approach is to simply fail the review (the nominator can withdraw at any time too, which will result in the same outcome) and then renominate the article.

From what I can tell, the major bone of contention here is the scope. I know nothing about this topic so may not be much use. From the little I have read above it would be perfectly justifiable to have one article on the manga and another one on the franchise as a whole. I don't think it is up to the reviewer to say what this article should be about, but if the contents don't match the scope then they are entitled (probably even required) to raise questions. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding from reading between the lines is that if this is about the manga then it may lack focus as it goes into too much detail about the spinoffs and if it is about the franchise then it lacks broadness because it is missing important details.

My advice would be to fail the article as it is, the conversation is already delving into the uncivil which will make the collaboration necessary to achieve a Good article virtually impossible. I then think you need to decide what this article is going to be about and then be consistent in how this is presented. As an aside the prose is quite poor, enough that I would fail the article on that alone. Some examples from the development section:

• Masamune Shirow was influenced by several books on insects. Shirow had also noticed that young boys in Japan seem to identify to Robot heroes first. - How is this relevant. Needs more explanation, especially as it is the lead in to the section
• Throughout writing the manga, Masamune Shirow had a struggle of finding of not making it neither too complex nor too simple - Grammar
• However for various reasons, he decided not to do so Ambiguous - What were the reason?
• Shirow considers the manga a completely different kind of work and not a true sequel as the plot of Ghost in the Shell revolved around Public Security Section 9 and Ghost in the Shell 2: Man-Machine Interface follows what happens to Motoko after she merges with the Puppeteer. Confusing sentence - What manga? Too much plot and not enough context.
• Shirow had drew the color pages on computer, in which he states was difficult to due to technical issues with his computer. Grammar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)

You forgot to sign, Aircorn. Anyways, to be blunt about the scope of the topic, the scope was the franchise prior to the review and it was changed after the review began. That's changing the rules as far as I am concerned. Also, it should not have been changed as this article covers all the media and not solely the manga. While it is unbalanced to the manga it still mentions the series, the movies and the video game. As the main incoming link, this article should function as the top level and broad scoped overview of the entire franchise per convention. I do not think I am being uncivil and I have not resorted to pinning negative terms like 'bias' because the reviewer happens to have knowledge of the subject. Only someone grossly uninformed with the subject and not going by the guidelines would consider this article even remotely near the criteria. I'd be happy to fix the poor prose and deal with cleaning it up, but I do not want to be attacked for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the two previously unmentioned Ghost in the Shell games to the article, they do not have articles on their own, but I'm being lazy today. I still other important bits missing, but I'll deal with those later. I'm trying to lead by example here in hopes that Lucia Black understands what kind of material I want for a GA. Missing two of the three video games released on major consoles sort of fits that bill I say, but there is far more missing then it is worth pointing out simply because I can research and find it myself, then add it in the time it takes to find it and complain about its absence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA conclusion

This article will not pass, the issues are too deep. I'm going to fail it now. It has no chance of passing GA in its current state and until the issues are seriously addressed it should not be renominated. The scope of the article was changed mid-review by Lucia Black as noted above, more so the Ghost in the Shell (manga) page was unilaterally merged into this page and made into a redirect. The page has been deformed since then, not everything needs to be on one page and Lucia Black does not understand the scope of the matter and does not want me to attempt to fix them here. Thus I will close this as fail and continue to address the many problems of this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The merger was necessary. The article's structure is not an issue and therefore stating it is "deformed" is an opinion at best. Though i agree with one thing "not everything has to be on one page."Lucia Black (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not necessary, that's the point. The move should not have been done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was laughably bad, I just improved it a bit. For example, almost every(!) title was not italicized and there were just stupid things like SCE Japan Studio being written as "SCE Studio Japan"(!!). Other things included balded names, random linking, random capitalization, incorrect names, awkward prose, and more. And I think it's still not done. (Yeah, it's still really bad, for example: "Masamune Shirow was influenced by several books on insects. Shirow had also noticed that young boys in Japan seem to identify to Robot heroes first." lol) --Niemti (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and btw: wasn't "Major" just a nickname/nom-de-guerre (from the actual war?), not her actual rank in the S9? And wasn't she always being addressed by others as Major, never "Motoko"/"Kusanagi"? If I'm right about it (I'm not sure, it's several years I last watched/read/played anything GitS), it's another huge mistake that needs to be corrected. (or it could be that "Motoko Kusanagi" is actually a pseudonym/fake name, I don't really remember, but I'm pretty positive it was practically always only "Major".) --Niemti (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article according to the stats is a top 10000 article on Wikipedia with some 60,000 hits a month. Having it based on the manga instead of the franchise is a bad idea. If anyone can give a good solid reason why this should be so, please state so here. After 12 hours, I think I'll go back to addressing concerns if no valid argument is able to be raised. And for the record, the franchise is notable, it just didn't have a lot of information about it. Here is my plan of action:

1. Remove some of the manga details and push them into Ghost in the Shell (manga)  Done
2. Update and correct the issues with plot and story in the manga, the film and such as noted on their individual pages.
3. Correctly detail the complex nature of the media as for the story, it is not linear.
4. Greatly expand the development section, maybe produce some nice timelines.
5. Reduce all media sections with there own pages to a two paragraph summary style, with direct main links to said material.
6. Cover the artbooks, storybooks, and other background providing that media as more of a list and informative summary of the work of Shirow for those interested, I doubt they need their own articles for any of them.
7. Fix the differences in the Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell 2.0 comparison. At least note it here.
8. Fill out the lede some more with at least a few important dates.
9. Add a character overview section to the topic. Greatly expand the page containing the list of characters.
10. Fix the issue with Motoko Kusanagi page materials being scattered around. Same goes with the other characters like the Laughing Man and the Puppeteer/Puppet master/2501 the whole thing is incoherent.
11. Update the appropriate sections for the TV series, summarize briefly and send them off to their own articles, right now they are tiny and underdeveloped. The target pages need to be expanded.
12. While not directly related to this page, split the two games from the SAC video game and give them their own articles as they are entirely different games.
13. Add the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex manga somewhere.
14. Update the nav box to include that.
15. Add a section on Ghost in the Shell's philosophical section, cover briefly and then split off to the existing article and detail it. Using the Production IG and other interviews from the staff to back it up, and the official canon documents coming from Shirow.
16. Also update its influence and popular culture sections. It has been lampooned in comics, programming and caused a shift in thinking with its social commentary.
17. Add something about the Tachikoma and their Fuchi/Uchi counterparts to the main article. Then split off as the article exists.
18. Add footnotes to explain complicated series info if need be.
19. Split the primary source document references from the secondary ones. Probably not needed, but looks better.
20. Perform a final clean up and then go from there.

These are the steps I want to take, in a handy list no doubt. Its ambitious, but the entire franchise and its pages need a complete overhaul I think. This should get it to GA if not FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These are the reaasons why this wont work. 1) This will just be over redundant info. Its going to be merely a compilation of all three distinct series, however it will be worst because all media will be compiled and convoluted. 2) Its common practice to have the media section under the manga, so splitting that from the manga wont help at all. So basically the merger will happen eventually. 4) The three distinct series hold different new elements, we cant assume that all three hold the same background, for example: World War 3 and 4 which was mainly featured in SAC series. 3) You expanded the original PSX video game and included its soundtrack in the video game section? Didnt it bother you that other media that was mentioned briefly in the "TV series" bother you? 4) Some of these ideas are too fancruft. We really dont need to split primary from secondary. Its unnecssary wont make the article look any better. 5) Yoour distinction between continuities is lacking common sense and really needs work. For one to consider SAC video games completely different from the SAC simply because they don't share the same story and worst to somehow make it that its more connected to the entire series overall than the TV series.

I'm starting to notice the only reason this is happening is not for there to be an article to cover all coverage in general but because the film has been more recognized than the manga and it bothers you that the manga was merged not because it deserves to be separate from the series article, but because it suggests the original media is the one people are looking for over the film.Lucia Black (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me work on it. I can handle it, its not that big of a project. My ideas are 'fancruft' such as laying out the material broadly so readers can find it? I do not believe that. Also, its the merge itself that bothers me, you lock down meaning to the #1 incoming search term and intend to display that prominently, all but reducing the others to interwiki links. Doesn't seem proper. There is a reason Star Wars covers more then just the movies, with your way, finding the material you want on a subject requires extra digging then should be necessary. You type in Ghost in the Shell, you should get the franchise page, not the manga. But the franchise will direct to the manga when it brings it up, and prominently as well. So will be for the movie and so on. Cover the materials, not just the manga. That's the mantra to go by for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Got some stuff started, only one thing on the list done... but its a basic outline now and the strengthening of the article begins. I want to integrate the existing materials in a way that is natural, but without more content on the page it seems a bit bare. More to come later. Still going slow and discussing things with Lucia Black, now on the Anime Wikiproject talk. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been adding the non-Shirow works, the graphic novels and the novels themselves to the article. Only the one tied to Innocence was mentioned elsewhere, so we have a good amount of media that wasn't even covered and by three different writers no less. I did some work today on the figurines, the merchandise, cleaned up the characters, made the interwiki links for those more accessible, did some organizational work and filling out of a few extra things. More to come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

There is currently a request for mediation regarding this article. Here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

More about the 1995 film's impact

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/19/hollywood-ghost-in-the-shell (may go here and/or to the film's article) --Niemti (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox needs to be replaced

--Niemti (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Or be removed completely..Lucia Black (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, just replaced. --Niemti (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That infobox would work great if it were merely films and comics but all Tv series related media will get cluttered.Lucia Black (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All of character articles seriously need attention

I did some work on Motoko's. --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Merged

I've done something extremely bold and merged Ghost in the Shell (manga) into this article. Much of the content there was already duplicated here, and it all just seemed like an unnecessary content fork that was 8 years old (this article existed first). I've moved whatever was unique from the "(manga)" page to this article, comprising the infobox, the reception of the manga, the creation process of the manga, and the list chapters of the manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

HELL NO. All the major franchise articles (and there are scores if not hundreds of them) are separate from their original works for a very good reason. I spent a good ammount of time separating the content and making a franchise infobox too. You've got, for example (the very first thing than came to my mind): Mad Max AND Mad Max (franchise) (and Mad Max (character)), or Max Payne and Max Payne (series) (and Max Payne (character), too). Or Star Wars and the stuff in Star Wars (disambiguation) (including "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 1977 film, originally released as Star Wars", and even Star Wars (manga)). Make it Ghost in the Shell (franchise), if you need so (even as I'd rather keep it as the main article, like Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter are for the franchise), but otherwise revert your merge. --Niemti (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the articles were for the most part identical and that really screams content fork. The only content at "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" that was not here was the publication information and the critical reception. Both articles discussed the manga. Both articles discussed the films based on the manga. Both articles discussed the video game based on the manga. Both articles discussed Stand Alone Complex. And both articles discussed Arise. It is not necessary to separate the content of the two articles, and this is not the practice when it comes to Japanese media, anyway. And I don't see why the franchise infobox is so dang important when it duplicates the capabilities of {{Infobox animanga}}. I am not reverting myself as I feel that this edit is beneficial to the project, and there are other editors who agree that my change was for the better.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps articles on the franchises themselves are useful when there's a larger breadth of articles than there are for GITS. In the case of Mad Max (franchise), I would argue for merging that with the original film article, as there's not that much of a "franchise" and the video game seems like it could be mentioned on the article for the film it's based on. But with something as vast as Star Wars and Star Trek I can understand the need for a central "franchise" article. For GitS it doesn't seem all that necessary, particularly (once, again) because you made the daughter article practically identical to the parent.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"The only content at "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" that was not here was the publication information and the critical reception." Not true, I trimmed some info while adding the SAC manga. "Both articles discussed ...." Should have deleted everything non-manga and replace it with

Main article: Ghost in the Shell

. Done! "Star Wars and Star Trek" are hardly only franchsie articles. I mentioned Mad Max above - is it "vast"? Is Max Payne "vast"? And that was just from top of my head. What's different about the Japanese media? --Niemti (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When you have upwards of 8 films, multiple novelizations, several dozen recurring characters, and an established notion that one subject is part of a greater whole then a franchise page is probably helpful. For GITS, you have the original and a bunch of spin-offs and adaptations that are all retellings of the original story rather than what I would call a "franchise" like Gundam or Digimon (to use Japanese media comparisons at least).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference is everything that is Ghost in the Shell IS related to the original manga, and if merged, then we will not need to list reception of Stand Alone Complex or the films or Arise. On another note, we can mention info that directly relates to the manga such as , SAC, oshii films, Arise, PS videogame while shortening most of the other spin off spin off's into two sentences such as SAC's novels, video games, manga, and the film's novels, and soon Arise's manga.Lucia Black (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant to "main" everything else off the manga article. Which also could be then expanded (like the plot described in more detail, by chapters). --Niemti (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well now this article is now primarily about the manga, and it also discusses the various spin-offs and adaptations from the original manga. If anything, you are suggesting that we produce a List of Ghost in the Shell chapters article just to cover plot summary from the manga, which is of course never really a good idea in the first place. Also stop edit conflicting me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

...or to write more about its sepcific merchandise (like I myself once had a pretty big figure of Motoko from the manga). --Niemti (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what would prevent that from being a suitable topic here if reliable sources could be found.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's like saying Max Payne or Mad Max should have no franchise articles? But whatever, I need to get a life and stop arguing about Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they shouldn't.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this after boldly reverting the redirecting of the manga. I took a wikibreak cause of Lucia Black, but I don't intend to do so again. Niemti... don't get so upset. Ryulong has a point, but the point is opposite of what Lucia Black did by removing the franchise page. The manga needs to stay and it should only be Shirow's manga, as that is the key important piece that should be discussed in such detail and depth. I've gone ahead and dealt major changes that should satisfy the discontent right now. I've removed almost all mention of other adaptions from the manga, and refer it back to the franchise rather then let SAC, Innocence and Arise be detailed in the manga section. The first film was the one which is closest to the manga, but it was drastically different in tone. Either way... I streamlined it a bit to prevent needless duplication. For this franchise page, I've axed the table and the extraneous box set bit and the manga details need to be cut down more. Though I believe that imparting enough information in summary style about the manga page while linking to the manga is all that we really need. Lucia Black, you seem like a good candidate to do that. Anyways... since there are now three interested people in this page, that's a good thing. Let's keep improving it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely think that it is not necessary to treat this article as a "franchise" page. It should be about the manga and we have sections discussing the spin-offs and adaptations. It's easier than having two pages on what are essentially the same topic. Also your mass reverts removed all fixes I made to the prose and the titles of the Japanese releases.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to keep a page like Ghost in the Shell (manga), I'd rather it be solely about the publication. We already discuss the plot of the original here, so I think we should turn "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" into List of Ghost in the Shell chapters and allow it to also discuss the manga adaptations of SAC and the ongoing Sleepless Eye manga for Arise rather than just having it be about THE GHOST IN THE SHELL, MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE, and HUMAN-ERROR PROCESSOR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) A franchise page is practically required with how complex this 'universe' is. The manga is not the base for everything, and secondly, and more importantly I did not mass revert your fixes. Your changes are still visible about Arise and such, I just trimmed off the two pieces to start it. If you want you can place it back or if it is somehow different from the manga page which exists, let's place it there? I don't want to ruin your work or anything. I don't see how the pieces I cut off from the GITS page is different from the copy on the GITS (manga) page. Is there a difference? The table looks the same to me.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want it into a list of GITS chapters then we have a problem I think. A lot of condensed and valuable information about the manga and background is already in existence at the manga page, I'd like a summary of the manga to be noted in the franchise page. We have a good amount of information and it goes into good detail about key dates and background information, this is not important for a concise overview of the GITS material. Now... as to cover the SAC and Sleepless eye and arise... that could be done. Though what the about non-Shirow manga? How should that be handled? I'm open to ideas, but condensing the manga page to the franchise page isn't going to come out well. The reason is simple, we either lose valuable information about the manga to prevent burdening the franchise or we keep the manga on its own page and split off for the in-detail coverage of the manga article. I'm more keen on the latter because the manga while a base for the adaptions, is widely different and coverage is not equal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I made another comment at the bottom of here.[6] I do think the analogy to Final fantasy is valid for the reasons I point out there. Sorry to split off with that reply. Focus it all here, should be for the best to follow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this page can't be about both the manga and the franchise as a whole. That is pretty much how every other manga article is treated on the project. Saint Seiya is about the original manga and anime and the franchise as a whole. Video game series like Final Fantasy or Pokemon are not suitable comparisons because there are so many branches from the original. With GITS we have the first three manga, which we can discuss fully here, and all of the animated adaptations that came after, which we can put onto other pages. Ghost in the Shell (manga) was and is still a short article that doesn't tell us anything important that isn't already here, and my merge was for the most part streamlined aside from some duplicated material I introduced. It seems utterly pointless to have these pages separate, which was evidently clear when I was dealing with the template.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not every manga is detailed or covered well, and few reach bestseller status anyways, which according to notability allows them to have their own articles. And most mangas are single stories with an adaption. Not all content needs to be linked to the franchise and split off. And your argument has a critical flaw, the anime and manga were based on the story, but SAC is not a manga adaption. And Saint Seiya has numerous splits including Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas and its not alone with Saint Seiya: Next Dimension and Saint Seiya Episode.G being further examples. In all fairness... I don't see how merging the manga really applies when different stories and different works are represented with their own articles. The GITS manga is not GITS SAC. Nor is Arise or the video games. If they WERE directly related I'd agree with you, but they are not even close adaptions. I doubt you can even call most of the material an 'adaption' because its 'based on' and has little connection to the other works. To me, this is like Saint Seiya vs any of those other mangas... related, but not the same. And yes, the other articles could be expanded more to better cover the content, if we merge to one page that growth will be inhibited. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But the GITS manga is GITS in its original and purest form. The Oshii films, SAC, and ARISE all came after and can be discussed in minor detail here with greater detail on their separate pages. The manga I feel is too similar to the franchise as a whole to obviate split coverage.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While I do agree with you about the manga being the original and purest, it is not the sole designation and main incoming link for readers who wish to learn more about the subject. The whole franchise carries the tag Ghost in the Shell, but we have over ten separate entries that are only very loosely based on the original manga. My belief in splitting the manga out allows for greater detail, but also it won't bloat or confuse readers about the rest of the media. SAC is not even the same universe as the manga. Arise is a re-imagining as well. At what point will readers find Ghost in the Shell and look for those only to have the original albeit unrelated plot of the manga to read through? That's the problem, it will only serve to confuse readers. Sadly, the manga is not similar to the franchise as a whole. Compare to the SAC universe, some of the main characters have brief panels and no development and are just functioning as 'extras' in the manga. Then we have to deal with the fact the timelines aren't even related, and that the Puppetmaster case, one of the major points of the manga is given a terrible run through and the DVD released was a total letdown. So many things are majorly different. With a possible MMO debut, do you really believe that the GITS manga is so important as to deserve major coverage and outpace the other equally notable media? I disagree.

To prevent this conversation from going round in circles.... if we cannot agree to disagree... I'm open to expanding the coverage of the manga to include the derivative manga... maybe even the novels. But I worry about context and the relation of that material. Though I have a question... Does the GITS page as it stands now feels better for an unfamiliar reader to learn about what IS and what is IN Ghost in the Shell? I say yes, and that's a major reason for my objections. I will change my views if given a better argument, I'm not stubborn, but I do not want to sacrifice quality and readability for unnecessary conciseness and complexity of in-universe canon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I just think it's better to have an article dedicated to all of the print media that is separate from the main Ghost in the Shell page rather than having an article just dedicated to the original publications just for the sake of having the content separate from the main article. What we should not have is an article that just tells the publication history of this set of 3 books and expands on their plot.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes the series convoluted and inconsistent to merge all media together when they dont fall in the same series. And thats the main reason why i believe this should be about the manga, because only the media directly related to the original manga will be included. And whats all media directly related to the manga? Its the original spin offs that created more spin offs. For example, people will find SAC, the films, Arise. But we dont get the lesser media, the media that isnt directly related to the main manga. Why? Well because its not related to the manga. And two, they have their own articles. We might aswell merge all these articles together.

At one point you removed SAC video games section from the SAC article because the article was about the TV series. So i beg your forgiveness if i dont trust your judgement. You fail to realize that these articles of anime and manga also serve as series project to the original. The fact that these subseries have their own article make it even easier to make the focus on the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong. It would be better to dedicate one article to all the print media that is in Ghost in the Shell. We could use subheadings for Shirow's work and the other spin offs by the others. The list is neither that big and the relationship between the works are loose, but it is better then nothing or spinning them into the main GITS article. The new manga is still GITS manga and that is a logical place for them. I'm going to support Ryulong's suggestion for the manga page. It will allow indepth expansion of the publication without cluttering the main GITS page and it will be easier then making a new article for each one. While not my ideal, I will support it.

And Lucia Black, your 'merge all articles together' thing is what I am against. It will destroy the readability and the scope of the content, as well as its depth for readers who want such details. As for the SAC video game matter, I was trying to restore and rework it myself and it was your protests which stopped me and drove me away. You never got to see what I wanted to do with it or how it was going to work. The current form of the GITS page is closer to what I want then ever before, the manga page and many others are still deeply flawed in my eyes. I'm agreeing with Ryulong about the scope because it makes more sense then what we have now, there is no perfect form for Wikipedia's articles, time does not matter much either. And lastly, Lucia Black, making THIS page about the manga and only the manga is a bad idea, especially with the page statistics I pointed out last time. 60000 visitors a month should get the franchise and be free to hop to their interested content and not be stuck on the manga when other GITS universe material has the same identity. If it was 'Zobop' and 'Blargrawr' I'd be content to have them go to separate pages, but not 'Ghost in the Shell' manga, film and video game all wind up at the manga nor every other installment having the Ghost in the Shell name before its suffix or tag. That was the keystone of my argument and I do not think I will budge on it because it is not logical or rational, its why the franchise page was needed and existed in the first place. We even have an old disamb page which tries to do the same exact thing, clearly... a franchise page was important for navigating the universe's content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

My original plan was to have this page primarily about the original manga with various sections dedicated to mentioning the various animated adaptations, thereby eliminating the need for an article just on the manga. Having separate articles for the franchises and the original works just seems unnecessary. But if we're going to have a separate page it better be about all of the print media rather than just the originals. This way at some point along the line there will be an article for SAC Tachikomatic Days or Man-Machine Interface or Arise Sleepless Eye.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But the problem will only surfice if alternate plots with the same name occur. So the only one is GITS video game, but thats a spin off from the manga (similar to how SAC novels, video games, and manga are spin offs from the original SAC tv series). The number of alternate stories with the same name dont outweight the original. The alternate stories have distinct names apart from the original. And despite that, the manga will just be the main focus, like many anime and manga articles, the article will still cover the relative spin offs.Lucia Black (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The video game is not the film or the manga. The film is not like the manga in tone or scope. They are not the same thing to me. Explain how these alternate plots and media are NOT a problem then. GITS does not have a normal manga to anime adaption, it is not even an adaption, its an alternate universe as you pointed out earlier. Making the issue even worse for the two games which derive from that. GITS does not have a normal or coherent 'adaption' that can casually be explained in where the differences lie. In fact, I challenge you to explain the entire franchise as how it relates to other media. The article really needs such an explanation and you seem to know enough about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The videogame is based on the manga as the developers and production I.G made the animation with the intention of making it closer to the manga. Not only that but they use fuchikomas. Fuchikomas is what separates manga series from the others. Similar to how Tachikoma's only appear in SAC series. The differences between films and manga were made strongly after the sequel "Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence" as it used a manga chapter before the events of the film/manga as a sequel with mild alterations but other than that the physical differences between the manga and first film are that there are no fuchikomas or side stories, and mild tone change. The first film is still considered a direct adaptation to the manga.

The difference between this series and the other is that it has a handful of distinct alternate tellings. The original manga, the films, the SAC series, and the new Arise series. The manga is light and apparently hilarious. Also fuchikoma are in it. Then the film significantly different, no fuchikomas, but holds true to the original plot of the manga. At its time before Innocence, it was been considered complimentary adaptation to the manga, but with innocence now released, its not so easy to call it "complimentary" as it alters the universe even further, so now it is its own alternate universe. Now SAC series, the puppet master initially didnt exist in this universe and alters the plot to focus on original characters such as The Laughing Man, Hideo Kuze, Goda. Eventually the puppet master comes in the solid State Society, however heavily altered. Fuchikoma were replaced with tachikoma. Arise series is a prequel to the general GITS universe, but inconclusived to which one. It is most likely a prequel to the events of Gits and not to a specific universe (films or manga).

BUT! here's the catch that i really want you all to understand this, the complimentary spin off media that may or may not be canon, however, still fall within a specific universe is unnecessary to add to the main especially if we made the manga the main focus. That is for example GITS video game storyline, the SAC novels and video games for the SAC tv series. These would not be included in the article because their not directly related to the original. PLUs they already have a place in their respected series.

For example, the film had a novel spin off "Ghost in the Shell: Burning City" and then a sequel novel "Ghost in the Shell 2: Star Seed". Now the second film "Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence" received a promotional prequel novel "After the Long Goodbye" that actually serves to be canon rather than the two novels for the first film. This type of media is just complimentary to the original subseries, original subseries that are directly related to the original media. It simplifies everything if we treat the collection of articles as a tree (the manga along with mention of its adaptations/subseries as the base, the subseries along with mention of its complimentary spin off media as the main branches, the spin off complimentary media as the smaller braches.) rather than a web (where the franchise is in the middle, and connects to all media equally yet scattered). It helps extensively with organization. And it helps readers find what they want.Lucia Black (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I like your tree analogy Lucia. I was hoping that this page would indeed be the roots or trunk, with the manga as part of that system, with the other visual media as branches. I would prefer if this article was primarily on the franchise, with the manga central to that discussion, but if it's not what we're coming to in a consensus, obviously having a separate article for all of the print media (possibly changing the title from "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" to something else) would be a second choice.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, not to be a pain or anything, but I just don't see how it is important and due enough to have the manga covered in great detail. I'd be happy with a SS one page overview of the manga, but lets keep the details on a separate page or something? Bah... Tell you what, do it your way Ryulong. You know how your project works better than I, as long as it is improved and we don't remove the content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I never really removed anything during my initial merge. I'd say most of what was at Ghost in the Shell (manga) had been 1 to 1 moved to this article. I'll redo the merge shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the merge is once more complete. Everything but the lead paragraphs from the (manga) article are now on this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

My concern was in the detailed information later being purged off under the guise of being overly detailed or excessive for a franchise page as more information is added over time. That was why, I wanted GITS to be the concise overview of the material and the branches to be the in-detail articles. But it is okay... we will cross that bridge when we do, and I'll be looking to restore the manga article to fill that capacity. I'll leave this to you, since the primary reason for my defense of the GITS main page is to cover the whole and not be a 'manga-only' page. As this is the entry and most searched term, I simply didn't want to have this revert back to manga-only and wanted to keep suit with WP:DETAIL, but you way works as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You give ryulong far too much credit. Give credit where credit is due. Ryulong is saying the same things i have, and oyu make it seem like he's saying something completely different. And if you've argued that the problem was being "manga-only". Our arguments in the past was practically unnecessary. Ive stated in the past that the article will only focus on the manga but still mention the other media.

I feel you're intentionally miscrediting me for this, because its the layout i had. The only issues are there is a. Awkward "graphic novel" subsection under manga and such. Novels will probably be axed as all novels were only complimentary media.Lucia Black (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That "graphic novel" subsection is there because we need to preserve the chapters and whatnot. That will likely be better moved off to a List of Ghost in the Shell chapters or List of Ghost in the Shell books article at some later point.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I may not agree with you, but you are an editor and your usefulness in dealing with OTHER matters was very helpful. And if I recall... Ryulong's method IS different because it doesn't involve making GITS about the manga and your plan was essentially that. This [7] is how it looked right before that GA, and I assume it was your intention to leave it like that. And this [8] is the current version. For being about the franchise (and manga) this page is superior to the previous landing spot of the would-be GA version you nommed. This is why I preferred Ryulong's direction to yours, I've been thinking primarily about the uninformed reader who will not get a good overview of the material at GITS when compared to yours. Also... my 'overview' preference lends itself to the separate manga page, so Ryulong's suggestion is not my ideal, but its to compromise with that then it was previously.

Don't take it harshly... I'm not trying to be mean, but considering what happened last time and how greatly different our views were, it should not be unexpected. I do not have the time nor energy to deal with everything... even the matter with G-zay at ANI took too long for my liking, but I did see you pushed back against that hoaxer and for that I thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And yeah... we could make a list for the chapters and such... but the chapters really aren't that long.... Whatever you want to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I was suggesting it to be on all the books that have been released.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All im saying you're giving far too much credit for the current layout. The layout that is now is just slightly altered to the rendition i made (to comply to franchise only) "Original series, Film series, Stand Alone Complex seris, Arise seriesÆ" but this rendition needs more organizing. and saying "placing your trust" on someone else, is extremely offensive. And to be fair, you were more spearheading everything. You refused to see alternatives, and no offense, but i dont think your review was very cosise to specific structure, content, ref, issues. They were more like "why isnt there a characters section" (despite most GA articles avoid them) and "No mention of tachikomas".

Our past couldve been avoided if we looked for consensus first. Im sorry, im willing to work with you "now", but you have to make it easier for the rendition. Back then, i didnt do anything wrong. I begged for discussion to the point of ANI. I dont want to look for a third party person now just to tie break between us. In fact, ive informed you more about the series. I dont own this article, but i dont think you know what makes an article Ga status (otherwise, we wouldve had a list of the typical things a GA class article usually asks which youve made none of those) and assumed the manga would reach GA status alone.

We have to look at other anime and manga-related GA articles. No video game franchise articles. No:OTHERSTUFFEXIST if it doesnt comply with the same situation this article is at. Currently im taking a wikibreak from anime and manga-related articles. But when i feel ready, i will start to edit again.

But overall. I think you have to be honest with yourself on how much experience you have. When it comes to reviewing GA, and when it comes to anime and manga related articles. I may have extensive knowledge of GITS, but its not about knowing alot about it, but finding what you can source and whats the best structure. Apparently you have hundreds of sources, yet you havent shared (and yes, i asked). I think it would be great if you shared those.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done many GAs and you keep confusing policies and essays, that otherstuffexists thing is not even related to the matter at hand. Sorry, but its not even a policy, its an argument to avoid at deletion discussions. These issues, compounded, made it frustrating to deal with you when you wouldn't let me enact changes and you wouldn't calm down. Even now you are not writing the same way as before because you are frustrated and it shows. I'd spearhead changes, but the thing is, it takes time. A lot of it. Most of those sources I have include transcripts, interviews and material on the DVDs and information about art books and storyboarding... most of it in Japanese which is a pain to get translated. For the transcripts, Google is no secret, its the reason why I was annoyed about the plot section. Do you REALLY want the producers of the toys and the rare various mechs, how about the papercraft ones derived by the community of fans? Some of it is worth a mention, others aren't. Shirow's notes really fall outside of this Wiki article and isn't relevant in this part, but for characters, plot and in-universe explanations, its nice to have sourced. And it is a bit insulting when you question my experience when you worry so much about a content dispute. But whatever, it was the reason I took a wikibreak, I got better things to do then quibble with you. Do whatever you wish, I got plenty of other things to take care of. I just popped in to see how GITS was shaping up and I got stuck here again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to say that who can blame me for being fustrated? In the past you spearheaded without discussion, without consensus. There is absolutely no excuse for that. You come back, but not only do you come back, but ou give practically all of the credit to Ryulong and "entrust" the article to him as if you OWNED the article. While only miscrediting me of G-zay (which i wasnt the one being apart of). Characters arent as necessary to have, especially in a franchise article and especially if the plot incorporates them, many GA articles avoid a character list as it deviates from informative non universe info. Im not confusing policies with essays, many essays are accepted in various terms, and i mention WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST incase you want to compare an article thats completely different. For example, in the past you compared the article to the Mortal Kombat franchise articles, and Final Fantasy articles. You cant blame me for bringing up OTHERSTUFFEXIST. The thing is anyone can review for GA class. So saying youve reviewed many, doesnt fully convince me that you know what you're doing. What does convince me that you have not reviewed articles for GA properly is when you split the manga and in its previous form with practically no manga related info, stated that it was ready for GA (when it was clearly not). What does convince me you had barely any articles to anime and manga and more related to video games was how you disregarded all concretely related anime/manga articles that i gave you for an example of structure and continued to compare it to video game articles, and how you continued to persist video games of the Ghost in the Shell franchise were most significant enough to have their own sections despite them already linked in their respected articles. And what irritates me and most provoking is now you arent saying anything different, if anything you're willing to compromise now that its not just me. But you take it even further by being by "Ryulong's" side even though, he isnt saying anything different. You complied to the merge so willingly, and youre using structure issues as the main argument in the past to say how me and him, but it was more about the split/merge issue in the past. For the record, this is me being at my most aggressive level because, the past arguments we had were virtually useless and you attempt to defend the bloody past, and treatment i received from you. We couldve avoided it, and thats why im so angry with you. If you were as calm, as reasonable towards me as you currently are to ryulong, then this mess couldve been avoided. But i resent that you chose to spearhead, disregard others to split, to make a mess of the article (and i'm not saying that as slander, it really was a mess, novels being mislabeled to graphic novels, all complimentary media treated equally to direct subseries, and the excess of subsections between "ghost in the shell" to "Stand alone complex") that half-heartedly but full-effort to fix it so that the manga and franchise would be virtually different and attempt to convince myself that maybe the manga would be fine on its own. But all that struggle left for nothing as you are willing to comply as long as its Ryulong. So thank you, for the three months of torture.Lucia Black (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Say what you wish, but there is no concensus needed to start working on an article or to change it. It was like that for months. Your objections IS the reason I don't improve it, because you didn't like me working on it. Other editors informed you of this and the article was not GA level for many reasons. Your understanding of policy and defense of arguments is essentially name dropping and trying to invoke authority. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not even related to the matter, to even use it in this argument shows how silly it is. You complained about WP:SS but I used it to counter with the specific matter of WP:DETAIL which is part of WP:SS. We both know three to four times the content could easily be put onto this page, but my 'half-hearted' effort was dealing with someone intent on getting me blocked because you didn't like what I was doing and rather then let me do it and see how it turns out. Even THIS case, I couldn't even get work done because of opposition. But whatever, I'm content to let this page be less then what I want it to be because its too much trouble and effort that is wasted. It'd take me a solid week of research and work just to get the content up to par. And no one will give me a week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

again, excusing yourself, hypothetically if i changed the article again, i wouldnt need consensus right? Of course i would. So why do you think you dont need consensus??? You have such backwashed view and think rules dont apply to you simply because you have good intentions. It doesnt work that way. it doesnt really matter on the GA level of the article was at the time, i knew you werent well experienced with GA reviews, as you asked for a couple subjective things that do not pertain to GA. Have you seen what other GA reviewers ask when it comes to GAN? You made none of those. And again, you claimed Gits manga was ready for GA after its split. And it was so clearly not, anyone with GA experience couldve seen that it wasnt. The intent with ANI was to wake you up from raging edits disregarding everyone else just because you had best interest at heart. If you refused to listen obviously whatever block happened was not of me, but your own doing. WP:DETAIL is extremely subjective, meaning we determine whats key info and whats not. And you can say how irrelevant or "silly" OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Its still an essay im going to use. Because its helpfull, and knowing you, you will compare it to a completely different article (as before).

But thats not the most rageful part of this. Its that you couldve done it differently. Like you're apparently doing now.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Niihama, Newport

The english name is newport, but in japanese its niihama. From what i know the manga uses newport and i believe SAC series aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've only ever watched SAC subtitled, never dubbed, so I don't know what has been dubbed for the American audience, but I do know it is subtitled in English as Niihama the same as it's spoken in Japanese on the American disks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

well i remember they clearly stated newport city. On another note, the first film's caption says "newport city" as well.Lucia Black (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

God damn Lucia. You do not completely throw out any sort of information that comes from the original Japanese language release just because it gets an English language dub. If it's called "Niihama" in Japanese and "New Port" in English, guess what? You use both damn names. End of fucking discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down. I know things are tense on here at the moment but there's no need for that language and attitude. Just stay calm. Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont talk to me again like that, or i will report it. Thats my public warning, so people can know that i did infact "warn" you. Second, this was from your removal of "Newport city". obviously we use both, just not the same way. and i never once said "axe japanese name and only use english" im pretty sure thats where Nihongo template is there for. So calm down. However Canterbury is saying that the english media also uses "Niihama" aswell, so should we use both equally? Ill look into more english media, the only one im certain of is Innocence (oddly as the first film uses New Port city").Lucia Black (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep demanding information on things that are not necessary or you're acting as if you're going to throw out edits that you vaguely disagree with. I found "Niihama" on several Japanese sources, and it seems that "New Port" is just a literal translation of those, so I thought it was an error. Both are on the article now and both seem to appear in both languages. Why do we need to discuss this?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To determine which one is used more commonly in english media. Im not demanding much other than the reasonable. Im not acting like im going to cut something. And if i am, it would be out of consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating....

I'd be happy to put some additional content on this page if I won't be jumped on for doing so. We are missing quite a bit of information. I put a couple of bits up about the music, though I am concerned about the music possibly growing too large for the GITS page. There is a lot of info on it... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, SAC has its own music page and it seems the soundtracks for the first two films are mentioned on the film pages. Have there been other releases?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh... why did you delete my sources and edits. The limited edition SAC box set had the 4 OSTs and the unreleased one. Its not even listed on the SAC music page and the SAC music page uses the material. Furthermore, we don't even have the film soundtrack given its own page. I'd prefer to have a source about who created it and when it was released, even if it is to Amazon. CD sites are fine for such information and if the material is not really contentious, vandalism occurs about dates and credits often enough. Last time I checked with the noticeboard, Amazon can be used as a source for certain things unrelated to promotional or sale of items, while not ideal, it does have base information about the CD that is fine to cite. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you need to point to various online stores that sell music to source the information? The SAC music page at least mentions the CD box set in discussion for OST 4-. I'm sure that there is a source elsewhere that has this information hosted that is not Amazon or CD Japan. Also I found that your description of the box set to be poor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, SAC OST+, SAC OST 2, SAC OST 3, Solid State Society OST, SAC CD Box, GET9. Oddly enough, be human is only in the rerelease listing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I just picked easy to find ones, they aren't blacklisted or anything, but they were not on my screen is all. When I input the information I looked for the top results and found those. Is your source is fine or better, sure. But did I see those, no. Everything I do is removed, questioned or whatever, even if it isn't the final version or even complete. I just grabbed the best source out of a bunch and went with it. Even transcripts aren't perfect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Music sections are irrelevant, not to mention abiguous even for a "franchise" page. The music between series has changed throughout the subseries. The video game has multiple artists, the films have kenji kawaii and SAC series have Yoko Kanno with Arise having "cornelius". There is no need for a music section as music isnt the strong point of the GITS franchise. If this were a "video game" series article, it may have been acceptable, but overall the music section is like compiling information more relevant to the subseries rather than the franchise as a whole. I suggest its purge immediately. The soundtracks are already in their respected articles.

Its like making a development section meant only for the animation of GITS. Not relevant and considering multiple series have their respected animation, virtually unnecessary and not helpful. Remember the "tree" analogy? You're still trying to turn this into a "web" type.Lucia Black (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, this 'tree' thing is contradictory to what WIKI is. Wiki functions like a web, not a tree. Interwiki links are not branches, but other sections that relate to others. A tree consists of trunk and branches and those branches do not belong to other trees in the forest. Your analogy fails. The music page is different from the GITS page and the manga page was different from this page. And you know what, if the production of the series was notable and detailed enough then we could quite possibly have a page for that. I think you should change the SAC music page to the Music of Ghost in the Shell, label it under the franchise and put in the games, SAC, the OVA and the movies and have it all under one happy page and link to the relevant sections from the other pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Prove that it contradicts first. Prove that wikipedia does not work as a tree style and more as a web. I initially made it to "Music of gits" but people were raging that i merged dthe film's soundtracks, and quickly realized that the music of the films were completely different and unrelated to the SAC series, so i changed it to SAC music only. Not only that but the soundtracks are better off in the film's You fail to understand that each series has different music, produced by different composers, for different subseries. If they were all produced by the same composer then i would warm up to the idea, but other than that, theres no strong relation to eachother other than they were indirectly produced for ghost in the shell franchise. And the reason why an animation section wouldnt work is because its practically production section only compiled by different unrelated series. WP:DETAIL also suggests a tree like structure if you read about child articles becoming parent articles. Chris...you dont know it but you're asking for making these other articles virtually useless. Making the merge request more emminent. We have to keep franchise article different from others, and not only that but we have to keep whats key to Gits franchise as a whole and music and animation are key aspects to their respected subseries, not the franchise as a whole.Lucia Black (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How is wiki software like a web instead of a tree? From wiki, "A wiki is essentially a database for creating, browsing, and searching through information. A wiki allows non-linear, evolving, complex and networked text, argument and interaction." Done. You use the software, you should know about its intended functions. Also the rest of that frustrated argument is hilarious because you are taking the opposite stance despite your earlier position. They are different. Like the mangas are different. It seems you just like to argue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

you and i both know you're stretching the relation to the definition of wiki software to the structural style and organization of wikipedia, in which i assumed when you said, "wiki" you meant "wikipedia". And what are you talking about mangas? The mangas of ghost in the shell, 1.5 and 2 were all written by masamune shirow and all part of the same continuity. Separate manga not drawn by masamune shirow and not an original story (for example: SAC manga is direct adaptation to SAC tv series with virtually no change) should probably not be in the franchise page, as ive stated before, they are just complimentary media directly related to the subseries over the franchise as whole. Why? Because they have already have extensive mention of them in their respected page and be over redundant to have duplicates of the lesser non-key info in the main franchise page. Idk how thats related to music. The music was composed by different people who had different visions for their respected series. Why have an individual section for them when the series have their own articles and their own sections in the franchise page. If a composer for example Kenji Kawaii produced music for both films and another series, lets say hypothetically "Arise", then a music section to cover all series would be appropriate as a composer has done over 2 different series and he would be the most common composer for Ghost in the Shell. But there is no common composer, each series has had their own composer. Another example would be if they made compilation of soundtracks between series. For example: A gits film - SAC - Arise compilation. Not only that but music isnt what makes the franchise, its the number subseries. Im being consistent, reasonable, and clear as to why music section is unnecessary and insignificant in the franchise article. Its not for the love of arguing.Lucia Black (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not stretching anything, I didn't write it, but you know how Wikipedia is non-linear and you do not need to have specific structure or form. Ironically, my suggestion at making a music page to go with the SAC one is of the same purpose as your suggestion, because Arise does have its own music and the films have their own music and the games have their own music. Honestly, I'm done arguing with you. It is unproductive. Bye. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're stretching the connection between the definition of a wiki to the structure of wikipedia. And Wikipedia is linear at a lot of things. When i said prove it, i meant prove that wikipedia is about non linear structure. Making a music section does not go along with mine, because mine is about scaling to whats most relevant and key info, and the less important leave it at its respected page. You want to synthesize everything together. Just because all have music doesnt mean a specific music section ESPECIALLY if none of them are related to eachother. Back when ghost in the shell (manga) article existed, you would not add the SAC manga, and the Arise manga onto that page, right? And why would you not add them together? Because they arent related to eachother. They may be manga, but have different universes, different plot, different artist, different writers. Thats why music cant all be compiled altogether. I initially believed it should but realize i was wrong because they arent related to eachother significantly enough to be compiled.Lucia Black (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

what are you two fighting about.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you really asking this? You can read the discussion. Im against inclusion of a compiled section of all Gits music as their not key aspect of Ghost in the Shell franchise, each series has different and distinct composers. ChrisGualtieri believes they are a key aspect because all the animated series of Gits series have "music" and therefore should have a section of all subseries but not only that but merge soundtracks altogether in the "Music of GiTS: SAC" and compared it to how manga was merged back in the main franchise. I defended that the mangas were all done by the same artist, and fell into the same continuation. If the Gits (manga) article still existed, you would not merge the SAC manga adaptation and the Arise manga there because their not related together.Lucia Black (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do I even bother... The mangas are not all done by the same artist. You insist on arguing on tiny details and you are utterly incapable of making strong base arguments rooted in policy or sense. You flip flop back and forth and change your positions. Your arguments are wrong. Simple. Shirow did NOT do all the mangas. Even the Arise manga is not by Shirow. Take a look a month old crunchyroll news post. [9] Or are you forgetting the SAC manga by Yu Kinutani as well? Seriously, we don't even cover them in detail. Though we don't cover other things like the SAC cafe promotion done which was unique and interesting.[10]. So whatever.... I doubt we can get to the fun stuff while we argue here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Its insane how you prove my point, and not even know it. I used the manga analogy that you claim works for you. I said hypothetically if the Manga article still existed we would NOT merge the mangas because theyve been written and drawn by separate artists. So if we didnt merge those together because each series was different and had different artists's, why would we merge music together if each series had different composer? Lets not forget that this is complimentary media, not key media to the franchise.Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking because I don't want to read through 4k worth of text when I can just get a succinct response.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're vote would be nice. a music section is unnecessary for the franchise article. Music doesnt play a huge role for the franchise, the only one it does is for SAC series and the SAC article already has a music section for the SAC music. And the reason why SAC has a specific music article over the rest of the films was because it was appropriate to WP:SPINOFF as the article is already lengthy enough and merging all soundtracks to the main article would make it too long. Not only that but they all shared the same composer: Yoko Kanno. Another reason for not merging the main article is the soundtracks of OST 2 and OST 3 are mixed with tracks of season 1 and 2. So cant determine to be merged to season 2 or not.

Overall, it seems like unduue weight.Lucia Black (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There have been pieces of music written exclusively for Ghost in the Shell. So it makes sense that we provide a summary here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the music was written exclusive for Ghost in the Shell, and thats no different from any regular single series franchise. But this isnt a single series franchise, it involves multiple series and considering music isnt a huge or relevant aspect of Ghost in the Shell franchise as a whole. The logic doesnt really dictate that a music section is appropriate. The music is too distinct and separated between series. Example, they dont all have a common theme song or track between series. They neither have common composer. Its more like you're committing WP:SYNTHESIS by making Music of SAC (A) and Music of the films (B) and compiling it together to make it seem like their all related to eachother (C).Lucia Black (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:SYN to put a summary of the different musical pieces created for the various Ghost in the Shell visual media. You are right that they do not have anything in common musically, but it is common sense to see that they are related to each other because they are all the soundtracks to the various versions of Ghost in the Shell. It doesn't matter if one is the soundtrack to the original film and one is the soundtrack to the video game and one is the soundtrack to SAC. They are all Ghost in the Shell. Stop overanalyzing things. And maybe you should extend your "wikibreak" to talk pages other than just saying "I'm not going to edit in the article space for a while". ChrisGualtieri and I seem to be working perfecly fine, aside from my previous issues with sourcing and formatting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is if you imply they are related to eachother enough to deviate from their respected series, which it does if youre making a section dedicated to it. WP:COMMONSENSE doesnt dictate here and its hard to use it at the right time because its incredibly subjective. I'm not overanalizing, If anything you're underanalizing. Music as a whole doesnt play a significant role on GITS because its not independent media, its complimentay media to the subseries and spin-offs. The music in their respected articles. If anything summarizing it into the Films section and SAC section is far better as its strictly related to those series than with the franchise as a whole. The films have their respected OSTs, the SAC series have their own page but linked extensively in its original page. We cant summarize every single little detail about these subseries into an arbitrary sections. Whats next? The Franchise looks like a giant blob of info mixed with several different series? Thats where its heading towards. They are more related to their respected pages. Its more to it than their all gits, each series was produced differently, therefore all msic was produced differently, and this is supported by each series having a different composer. None of the series have a track or song that they all share therefore not strictly related. The only thing making them related is if you simplify things and make it "All produced for ghost in the shell" for the franchise? Indirectly. The musis was produced for their respected series. One completely original from the other. Making a section dedicated to all music of the subseries while mentioning the subseries in a separate section is completely arbitrary.Lucia Black (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, you should not quote policies you don't understand anymore. Just don't. WP:SYN doesn't apply to this argument anymore then OTHERSTUFFEXISTs did. It does not mean what you think it means. Synthesis is about taking two different statements and warping them to present a new and usually POV argument. The example on its page clearly shows this. Ghost in the Shell as a whole consists of different series and media, music from those series and media are still part of the whole. Take a look at Star Wars its listed as GA and everything extra is thrown into the extended universe... and that extended universe pages go even further then that. I think our music section should detail that and move on, because GITS has notable claims on its music for language, form, and feel. We should detail that theme and the nature of the whole. I'd like to put in how the themes of its music are multicultural and futuristic but gritty. Music sets the mood, it is more then just filler sound, music can define a work in the same way the art and story does. I think we do more harm and disservice to the reader by squirreling away the matter of music at least two pages and a lot of content away from the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, comparing it to something irrelevant to this article such as Star Wars and its universe, which is precisely why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST has become relevant and why i brought it up. In-universe is far more difficult aspect to keep between specific series for a single timeline such as Star Wars. Therefore confirming whats canon and whats not within a series' universe is difficult. Ghost in the Shell doesnt have that issue, but even more important, music such as soundtracks arent what makes the franchise go round unlike the in-universe aspects. Its more relevant to their specific series, but not the franchise as a whole to have be mentioned separately from their respected series. Second, you're assuming to much on GITS music and provided no reliable sources to such and i doubt you will find sources stating all Gits music stuff you claimed.

Thinking things of "disservice" is like thinking "what the reader wants over whats best for the article". And often times, its not really a disservice to first time readers, its a disservice to fans. A franchise article isnt about compiling every detail of the other articles. Its about holding the key info of the franchise and if there are spin off articles and they have become their own parent articles, the franchise article doesnt cover it. Because its info already covered in its spin off article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, I'm done arguing with you. You either do not understand it, trying to troll, or have competency issues. For the last time, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy, it is an essay. Either for creation or deletion of articles or inherent notability. All of GITS is covered under inherent notability. Your argument for OSE was, "...i mention WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST incase you want to compare an article thats completely different." You do not even understand WP:SYN. " Its more like you're committing WP:SYNTHESIS by making Music of SAC (A) and Music of the films (B) and compiling it together to make it seem like their all related to eachother (C)" You are completely wrong for many reasons here. They deserve a mention on a franchise page because they are related to the franchise. I'm not going to test the waters anymore or try and see if mere information (wherever sourced) sticks because I am done entertaining this. It is a colossal waste of time. Ryulong and me may differ on things, but we can come to compromise and work towards improvement, it does not seem possible to work with you on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How about everyone just calm down for a second here and stop escalating the situation. There is no deadline and obviously we should come up with a compromise. I know things are a bit tense around here at the moment, but as they say, "keep calm and carry on." Now then, let's move on to something that's actually important. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Music ref

I got one such piece of claim about the GITS Innocence sound.... Lucia doesn't believe my 'hundreds of refs', so I'll put one up that I can't quite figure out how to work in. Here's the useful snippet. It acutally comes from Gerle, Jörg. "Ghost in the Shell 2 - Innocence." Film - Dienst. Deutsche Zeitung GmbH. 2006. But you will need a Highbeam to see it unless you got it floating about.

"Herausragend 1st neben Vorspanntrack Nr. 2 vor allem Track 7, der im Film zur japanischen Karnevalsprozession mit haushohen Pappfiguren erklingt. Zweites Standbein des Scores 1st jene filigrane, dabei stets bedrohlich wirkende Melodie, die aus der überdimensionierten Spieluhr im Schloss eines Puppetmasters erklingt. Wo andere den kostengünstigen Weg des Computers gewählt hätten, wünschte sich Oshii eine Komposition für eine echte, möglichst gewaltige Spieluhr. Die kostenintensiven und logistisch schwierigen Aufnahmen mit der größten Spieluhr Japans, die durch die Akustik in einem unterirdischen Höhlendom noch potenziert wurde, 1st wahrlich verstöorend - und ein idealer Test für Kapazität und Qualität der heimischen Surround-Anlage."

I simply loved the track, it was amazing. While I don't want to get the entire thing as a block quote, its basically the type of musical review and praise that the soundtrack brings to bear. Even more interesting is that because it is done the hard way and not with a computer. Actually... this track was the one I was thinking of when I considered one of the best pieces to represent GITS music, because it stands out with such power. Lucia... this is what I want to bring to this GITS main article. The power and notability of the music and the music alone to get full detailed reviews, even in German! GITS is internationally famous and so is its music. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about reception, in which would be best suited for its respected page. Regardless, thats not the type of refs I was talking about. Im talking about primary and secondary sources that prove what you said about them all having the same unique sound. A review making a statement of innocence having the best among the rest is just a statement.

Example: A SAC review hypothetically mentioning the great animation and dare compare it to all saying "Gits SAC has the best animation above all Gits media" does that suddenly prove the necessecity of an "animation" section within the franchise article? No. Because it was reviewing SAC mainly and compared the others to illustrate his/her point. S/he was not reviewing the other animation of the other series alongside SAC's. Another example: Would we make an "Animation" section simply because all of them were produced by Production I.G? No. They may all share the Production I.G brand, but each one produced by different directors, animators, etc.

The opinion on Innocence OST is best suited for the OST section in the Innocence article. But it does not demand a section dedicated to all music of all GITS media. What you're asking isnt a franchise article where it list the key features of what makes the franchise, you want a franchise article with the structure of a single series and compile the info. And thats a fail if they have their own articles. And im not saying a "mention" shouldnt be in the franchise page, but i'm against them having their own section. The subseries have their own sections in the franchise article. Why split something away just to arbitrarily expand on it? The mention should just stay in their respected series.

Such as "Yoko Kanno composed the music for SAC series" and maybe at the end say "SAC had received five soundtrack albums and a single" And the same for the films saying "Kenji Kawaii composed the music for the first film" "Kenji Kawaii also compose the sequel" etc.

ChrisGualtieri, there are other GITS article, and for a reason. If you do find any information, how much money do you think i will bet that you will want to add it in the franchise article first over the more relavent article? Because thats has been your focus the entire time. You want a huge glossary to the point where there is no point in having the other articles. Or rather the only thing separating the articles will be Reception and Plot. Wasnt that the main reason why the manga was merged back to the franchise? Wasnt it because the manga article and the franchise article were practically the same? A music section is unnecessary. Their complimentary media, making them "part" of their respected series, not a different entity to make a separate section. They dont have a common composer, a common track, so their not really related to eachother other than the fact that they share the "Ghost in the Shell" brand. And thats not enough when each series is too distinct.

That info you gave is just related to innocence OST therefore any specific review like that would go to its respected page first.Lucia Black (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you give a tidbit that sums up the nature of the whole, its good writing and practice to allude to the material on that page and address the tone and scope of what is to come. SS and DETAIL actually play a role here. And my point above, you denied that such a review of its music exists, I clearly found it and only posted a snippet. This ties back to your old 'there are no more sources, I checked them all already' from before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri i already told thats not what i was referring to when i meant i doubt you will find sources. Obviously reviews are out there, but thats not really the point. I'm asking for second and first party sources that illustrate that uniqueness you claim all gits musiic has. And again if we're referring to "tidbit" it doesnt really need a separate section. Thats the main issue. Its like you dont actually read my comments but skim through it halfway.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong structural and organization issues

This article is a complete mess. The idea of compiling all media together regardless if most relevant and least relevant to the franchise is making the article at a standstill, and no real progress will ever come out of this article until a real change is done. Not only that but the article appears to slowly be a duplicate of other articles and it will continue to do so until either A) one of you or a new editor sees the reasoning in only holding key franchise-related info and letting the "Main article" tag be usefull or B) one of you will have a bad revelation of merging these articles into the franchise. So i'll mention the strong issues this article has and hope that one or two editors understands the struucture issues.

• A publication history section and a manga section and the graphic novels subsection under it. For one, the list of manga volumes is far too short to merit it's own subsection. The naming of it was also very bad as one might get confused as to why "graphic novel" is under "Manga". Another is the manga section being a vague summary of the publication history. I suggest merging the Publication history info into the "Manga" section and remove the "Graphic novel" subheading.

• There's a Stand Alone Complex and Arise section yet SAC media is spread throughout the media section (a similar issue to the series and the music of the respected series). This is one of the issues of this article trying to be a duplicate its child article. I have a solution but no one seems to care for it recently. So unless you're open to my resolution, you'll have to find a way yourselves.

• Merchandise and Artbooks being separate from the Media section. Rather simple issue. Just move it back into the media section.

bThats all i have for structure issues. These issues are also significantly related to eachother. They all show example of more strict-related info being spread across to its loose-related info. And that simply wont change unless someone is open to the general ideas.Lucia Black (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but every time I try to address the issue I get reverted, but I'll do some more. I'm going to begin by cutting down the reception section. Just give me some time... at least a day to work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I keep leaning towards pushing the original mangas back to their own page to prevent duplication of content and manage to deal with with the series storyline issues that can actually address the elephant in the room: The material as it relates to other materials are not chronological, sequential, canon and consist of alternate universes, re-imaginations and other changes that allow material to stand alone or reiterate the other materials with different portrayals. I.e. the Puppetmaster being dealt with in (at least) three different ways in three different media. This aspect of the franchise is why I reject the manga being detailed so heavily on this page. The manga is irrelevant for the majority of the material, while it is original, its has little weight on the whole and forcing the manga onto the page in a dominating way is under WP:UNDUE. It is just not natural or feels right, confusing as the matter is, we would be better off detailing this fact for our readers and not complicating it for a relationship to other pages. The wikiproject as good leeway, but the wikiproject does not have final say about this page, so I'm rejecting that 'this is how the wikiproject handles it' because it is not valid. Its a poor attempt to bring authority into the matter to protect and project a standard which does not cover all cases. Common sense should dictate our direction and structure over a wikiproject's formatting whenever necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

God damn Lucia it's been like a week since we took care of all of this. It is unnecessary to have such a short separate article on just the original manga when this article should be about the original manga and its subsequent iterations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait... what about the franchise as a whole? Or do you mean Ghost in the Shell (manga) because I do agree that the manga and its other iterations should be on the other page. Oh... here's a good example of the visual media (not included: the mangas and novels) and how it relates to each other. I wonder if we can produce something like this. As for now, this is probably the best visual representation as to why my argument about structure should be considered. (The site is on the blacklist, but its Ani DB so you can easily find it.... bah not going to try and dodge filter even for a talk page.) Its not like most anime/manga media for sure. Gundam is more complex though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, I like how you pointed out Arise, but we potentially have another major case about the characters. I wonder if Arise is going to go with the 2nd Gig version of Motoko's cybernization or not, but this variant is not the Motoko we know and is not reminiscent of her portrayal even as a child in 2nd Gig. This will be interesting to see how it was done. I reworked the setting intro part, hopefully it is better to deal with the complex media issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This page can serve both purposes as a page on the manga and the franchise as a whole. There is no reason to split everything off again just because Lucia is complaining. I've restructured the rest of the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. I think the setting should work better now that Ryulong has edited it and also support Ryulong's points that the page would be useful to cover both the manga and the franchise. I don't think the manga should have its own article obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i dont know where the idea of splitting the original manga is coming from. The original manga will continue to serve as a duplicate if split. That cant be avoided, so merging it back was the best choice. But i never sugested split. You really didnt fix the rest of the issues this article has other than removing the manga section (the section that only summarized the publication history section). The list of graphic novel section doesnt really solve the issue of confusion between manga and graphic novel. Plus the list is far too short to have a subsection. So i still ask for the subheading to be removed. There is still a "SAC" and "Arise" section with all their related media spread across. Its bad organization. And the Artbooks and Merchandise are still in their own independent sections, making it that much of a mess.

I do believe the article should be about the manga and its following interations. But what would summarize and fix this article even more is if we only kept what is most relevant to the original manga. The novels dont play a huge role and their in their respected series' articles, same for video games and such. Covering the merchandise is also more related to the SAC series as it only holds SAC merchandise.

This is what i mean by duplicate of other articles. The main article doesnt attempt to summarize the other articles, it attempts to duplicate it. And the duplication can be avoided. The SAC article covers the SAC video games, and the SAC novels extensively. So that info is less of a necessity here. I'll give an example of Blood: The Last Vampire has two alternate tellings, Blood+ and Blood-C and makes a mention of it in the page and very briefly mentions its own adaptations that the series have spawned. I believe (to an extent) that the same organization can be structured.Lucia Black (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you do not present a franchise, it was a franchise page before you tried to compressed it and it was a franchise page for good reason. Blood: The Last Vampire is not a franchise page. You keep doing this, why not take from Sailor Moon which is GA and is a franchise page. Note that the manga has its own split, the anime has its own split and each entry within that has its own article. This includes games, music and the musicals. You insist on making comparisions under your 'otherstuffexists' clause, compare apples to apples not oranges. A franchise and singular entry (or manga with anime adaption) are not similar. This is why I find so much fault in your arguments, they are consistently unrelated and weak. Compare like things, please. And GITS is more complicated then Sailor Moon, lending more weight to my argument about the necessity of the franchise page covering all aspects and splitting off as needed. Take your 'duplicate content' argument out of it, I do not want duplicate content here beyond the minimum needed to point it out. In fact your 'duplicate content' argument is a strawman because you insist on remerging and bloating the article out under the guise that the manga should be included. You are duplicating content and you are merging content to this, reposting material from other pages, I'm trying to stop that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sailor Moon does not have separate pages for the manga and anime adaptations. They are doing an idealized form of what I want this page to be, as they have only lists of manga chapters and anime episodes separate, with the musicals and tokusatsu show the only media entities with separate pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Sailor Moon chapters has details about it and so does List of Sailor Moon episodes. Before the list begins it gives background on it, that's what I'd like to see with GITS. If we have enough to expand to a full detailed article beyond publication matters then we could cross that point later, but a list of GITS manga is what I would like to see on its own page and not solely on the franchise page. Especially since we have 3 different mangas and the additional novels. I believe this is what you meant before and that's why I agreed to putting the material together. As long as it isn't a literal list without context, as I believe Lucia seemed to imply, but I might be wrong about her intentions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the Sailor Moon article? There is no other Sailor Moon manga article, there is no other Sailor Moon anime article. If you're reffering to the list of episodes/chapters, those are SPINOFF article appropriately split off as their too long to cover and common practice. Its not a full-fledge article, its a list article. There is only a Sailor Moon (English adaptation) article that is practically that covers the same media as the main article only localization changes and distribution. And has already been voted in WP:ANIME to be reworked and merged back to the main article. And who voted for that? Yours trully. Not only that but Sailor Moon is a single series. All adaptations are "direct" adaptations to the original manga with some alterations. On a side note,

I am well aware that GITS is more complex than Sailor Moon article, but that doesnt support your claims at all. GiTS doesnt have to appear as complex as it is. As i already pointed out, there is no separate article for the Anime and Manga for Sailor Moon and thats what differs from Ghost in the Shell as each series has its own article (apart from the original but most anime&manga articles do that and splitting would be virtually useless). Technically all anime&manga articles that cover multiple related media, are franchise articles. Blood: The Last Vampire is a good example as it has multiple media directly related to the original media including alternate tellings that have gained their own respected media (not mentioned in separate sections of the main article). And if you did want the minimum of duplication, we wouldnt be seeing the spin off media of the subseries in the main article spread across (because as I said a dozen times, they arent directly related to the original and therefore not key info. And ofcourse...have their respected article).Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what a media franchise is. All GITS media in the media franchise is related... to the franchise. Your arguments about individual components would make sense, but for a franchise they do not. Again. The linked article to Blood is NOT a franchise page. And despite anime and manga being a popular subject the Wikiproject boasts few media in the GA and FA pools. I think you spend more time arguing about stupid things then getting the content up, working and fine tuning. You think you have some right or ownership of the matter with how you argue on and on and have done nothing but demean my efforts at every turn. That, coupled with your arguments are why I do not want to even work on anime or manga articles. I don't know why I care enough to respond, I really don't. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Does it even matter whether you think Blood is a franchise article or not? It holds more common ground than Sailor Moon article. The structure of both Sailor Moon and Blood: The Last Vampire are strikingly similar with little to no difference, the only difference being is one labeled a "franchise" and the other isnt. Oh and also Blood has alternate tellings with their own multiple media (which is why its compared to GITS over sailor moon) covered in their own article.So hypothetically if Sailor Moon gained an alternate telling that meritted its own article. Lets call it: Sailor Moon X. Sailor Moon X hypothetically holds two novel spin offs and a manga adaptation. Does the Sailor Moon "franchise" article create a novel section for the Sailor Moon X novels and compile the Sailor Moon X manga adaptation along with the Sailor Moon original manga? No, because Sailor Moon X already covers it and more directly related to it over Sailor Moon franchise. It shows lack of organization and unnecesary duplication.

Mentioning the lack of GAs and FAs of the wikiproject is irrelevant. I do not find this a "stupid". It is key essential aspect of the article that would help it to even pass B-class. Theres nothing "stupid" about it. Ironically this demeaning issue was brought up in the GA review back when you became interested inthe article. You ignored my complaints and continued. Despite that, my comments are spot on and if you find it demeaning that was not my intent. There are other articles in the GITS franchise. Why make things overly complicated by merging all media regardless if related or not? It just makes these articles more difficult to navigate. This article will never get cleaned up unless we allow this spin off media in its respected page.Lucia Black (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand what a franchise is or what it is supposed to do as its primary function. Your comparison to Blood is wrong, that is a work with an adaption and other alternates which have their own pages, Blood is not a franchise page. Sailor Moon is a franchise page and it functions well as one. Note that the lists contain the bulk of publication and release information. Each series of Sailor Moon has detailed information in its own lists, example is List of Sailor Moon R episodes. This is what I wanted for the manga. Franchise gives super concise content, manga page gives detailed. Yes it is a split off, but the manga is just one facet of the GITS franchise. How to do that manga page is up to interpretation, but it should be done for clarity and to avoid confusing the readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but again, they both share little to no difference with organization issues. Sailor Moon isnt even calling itself a franchise (only in the naxbox, but that can easily be changed to "media" so its meaning is nothing), and most importantly far too different from GiTs franchise to even use as an example. All sailor Moon media in the article is directly connected to the manga. It cannot split media into separate articles so easily as GiTS can because the reception of the anime is basically reviewing the same plot only with different medium. They hold small changed between adaptations that can be noted quickly. Unlike GiTS where the SAC novels and video games are not directly connected to Ghost in the Shell overall, but rather connected to SAC.

The manga exclusive information of Ghost in the Shell is just about 4 paragraphs, 3 are the publication history, the 1 about its reception. But all original storylines stem from the manga, therefore if to be Split off, the manga article will be practically the same article as the franchise because it will be necessary to cover all the media thats directly related to it. And thats not what this thread is about. So bring it up at another time because the consensus to merge it is still recent.

Right now the issues are structural and organization and choosing what we should keep in the main article. Like i said, there's a Stand Alone Complex subsection and a Arise subsection within the Media section but SAC media spread across and in different subsections. The fact that these series have their own articles that are now parent articles aswell should make it easier to organize information. But you insist that im wrong. Another issue is the toys, only highlighting SAC and the Artbook section despite "Publication History" having that same info, and again the list of manga volumes is far too short to get its own subsection.

The article is a mess. Luckily i saved my earlier version right here. As you can see how clean and organized it is. It doesnt have to be "exactly" like this, seeing that the "Publication History" section is acceptable. But its very organized and links most of the info onto its main article.Lucia Black (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time to fix it. I will be responding to your posts with simple or single sentences going forward now. There is a communication problem between us. Take your Wikibreak or debate more. I reverted your edits about the title, Japanese has more then one way to be read. Kanji, literal, whatever. Read WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR. We need to talk about only one thing at a time it seems. I'll make subtopic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you honestly believe if i attempted to "fix" this article, it would not get reverted by you or Ryulong? Thats exactly why im discussing it. Plus previous spearheading without consensus by youu made me wary of making any bold edits. A) WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesnt apply here. This is about optimizing the organization and fixing the issues it has, which i dont think even you can deny that this article has issues. I obviously dont like it, but not because its completely based on my opinion but because the article needs to be reworked and accordance to WP:SS and also WP:DETAIL allowing the redundancy issues to be B) Although i welcome essays, WP:CIR is very vague and provides no real solution. It is highly opinionated essay that can be applied in any heated argument without any proof that it is relevant.

As for the japanese title, the nihongo template offers three distinct parameters, the first obviously for the common english title, the second is the japanese (often uses kanji and english letters), the third is hepburn transliteration, and the fourth is the translation incase the japanese kanji differs from. I reverted because the Kanji added the english version of the title, Implying that the japanese name was "Kokaku Kidotai The Ghost in the Shell" but its not, primary sources refer to it without "The Ghost in the Shell" next to it. Its like how when a manga is released in English, they dont remove the Kanji, but its still with the english title. In fact the Ghost in the Shell volume released by Dark Horse included the kanji title. The second title was incorrect, Japanese title is "Kokaku Kidotai 2 MANMACHINE INTERFACE" not "CONTROL PREFERENCES". I am not against adding "MANMACHINE INTERFACE" or "HUMAN ERROR PROCESSER" to the japanese titles.Lucia Black (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese titles include "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL", "MANMACHINE INTERFACE CONTROL PREFERENCES", and "HUMAN-ERROR PROCESSOR". So therefore it is allowed to put the text in the nihongo template.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because they include the English title alongside the Japanese one on a cover doesnt mean it is part of the Japanese one. Thats why there are sources. Example: The film is known as "Kokaku Kidotai/Ghost in the Shell" in Japan and the video game is known as "Ghost in the Shell Kokaku Kidotai" and we know that because primary sources call them that. The primary sources do not refer to the original manga as "Kokaku Kidotai The Ghost in the Shell". Its original research to assume The Ghost in the Shell is part of the Japanese title. Also, there is no "CONTROL PREFERENCES" in the title in both english and Japanese. That is wrong. The only one you had right was 1.5 but thats it.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Media relationship

We should show the relationship between different media on this page. Agree or disagree? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The relationship between the original media is most important. The one more directly related to the manga have their own articles that cover their own respected media. To add the same media those subarticles cover is unnecessary and only convoludes the article and doesnt allow readers to find the appropriate information in its respected page. It also helps whats directly related to the manga, such as its video game of the manga and the artbooks of it too. The article will still link to SAC article and "briefly" mention its spinoffs and adaptations, same for "Arise" and the films.Lucia Black (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That was not the question. Should we show the relationship between different media on this page? What material is based on or adapted on what material. You argue the original and SAC are different as is Arise. Let me repeat again, do we show the relationship between different media. Not covering content, not duplicating content, but the relationship between the other works. This is not about linking to other pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a new topic. By making this article only cover original media (SAC, Arise, films) and briefly mentioning its other adaptations and spin offs within the same section, we would already be showing the relationship between the media.Lucia Black (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the media franchise page. It should be on this page. There is no need to make a new page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not say to make a new page, but allow the details of the lesser media (of the franchise) to be in its respected articles that already exist. The fact that we dont have to make new articles should make it easier. SAC article covers all SAC-related media, Arise will soon be doing that and both Films cover their spinoff/prequel. Thats what my original revision did. It briefly mentioned the spinoff media and allowed the "main article" tag to be necessary. Having all that other info unnecessary is duplication.Lucia Black (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You had a month to do your changes. Why you filibustering mine? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop lashing out and trying to make things personal. I had a month to do my changes? What is that suppose to mean????? That in amonth you would return and revert it???? Stick to the topic, like ive been trying to.Lucia Black (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You complained that I did not give you a chance. You never give me a chance to make changes. You refuse to compromise. You need to read WP:OWN. We should work together, but you do not want to. I have made many efforts, you reject everything yet never have a counterpoint. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I've reverted your undoing of the merge. We do not need two articles that discuss the same subject just because Lucia is being entirely stubborn on every issue. Lucia, you are the only one having problems with this page as Chris and I feel the content is fine. Maybe you should just back off and let us handle this article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, Chris, any identifications of similarities between the different media must be supported by reliable sources. If you find them, this would perhaps be a good section.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong. I am working on this. See the construction tag? Let me work for 24 hours. Every time I am allowed to do work that work seems to remain on the page, at least the completed or better aspects. Let me do this. It's easier to do rather then explain, because explaining has wasted a month. I'm really annoyed by the filibustering of Lucia. 24 hours. Simple, give me that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore her. She's done nothing to help the page. There should not be two separate pages on items solely known as "Ghost in the Shell" (or Kokaku Kidotai).—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Chris. I complained on how you handled the previous discussion (in which you still defend). WP:OWN also notes to not confuse Stewardship with Ownership, and my intentions are solely for the optimization of the article without making it unnecessarily complicated and difficult to manuever. With that said, i welcome every edit, and if i revert i follow BRD rule. Also note that theres not a large ammount of editors contributing. So WP:OWN is obviously going to come in without reason.

I proposed a compromise back then, and was rejected. And look where we are now? The manga merged back, making my previous compromise useless. And honestly at this point, theres just no room for compromise. But im curious enough to at least know what compromise you're offering. I am most fustrated. I see two very distinct arguing tactics in efforts to weasel out of reasoning. Ryulong, you make your statements but refuse to respond when your arguments are countered. Chris, you get offensive and attempt to make things personal that point for various obvious reasons. And you all refuse to stay civil. Ive contributed alot to the article before you even came, Ryulong.

• I also was the one to merge the manga to the main article. I provided both publication information, reception, and development info of the manga.
• I also added enough information to the original Ghost in the Shell PS video game to bring it to start class. And i know that may not sound like much, but considering there is very scarce info, its still an accomplishment as it lost the risk of deletion.
• I expanded the S.A.C. article and its child articles, 2nd Gig and Solid State Society.

I'm not going to let you spread lies that i have done nothing. I've done plenty. But its more about expanding and my previous contributions arent related to the issues this article has. I provided the issues, no one has countered the reasoning, nor explain how it would affect negatively.Lucia Black (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What to do, again

Because of Lucia Black's stubbornness to add anything because of her continued self-imposed wikibreak from editing articles and the impossibility to discuss anything with her the continued fighting between Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri, ChrisGualtieri has undone the merge we previously agreed upon. I've reverted this. Chris, I've moved your latest version to this page so work on it there. I am firmly opposed against having two separate pages on Ghost in the Shell just to have one dedicated to the manga. This content is perfectly fine here. Perhaps the only thing we need to do is cut down on the description of the adaptations on this article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You will not let me even work on things. You will not even participate in the matter and I mentioned before about the content. I'm working on this page, why must you stop it mid form when you agreed before about all the mangas, we do not even cover half of them. And how does that matter to this page? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Work on the page in the sandbox before you completely throw everything that was worked on in the main article out just because you can't seem to get anywhere with Lucia Black. Spitballing your ideas on the live article is not going to fly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the content needs to be trashed. You and Lucia seem to hate duplicate content, but cannot and do not address it. In fact you are preventing it. I rather not sandbox and merge history back and forth, but fine. I'll need to get an admin to merge the history and such. You just are making more work out of it. BRD only works when you actually work to solve the problem and if you didn't notice, nothing is being solved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What needs to be trashed though? The only issue with duplicate content was that I copied too much over and the page had some of that kept.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean address it? We put it in discussion, I gave my reasoning. Why would you need an Admin to merge the history? BRD is there to avoid edit wars, to avoid some editor to neglect all the other edits done without proper reason and consensus. Not only that but there is Dispute Resolution, there is Mediation (which you refused to be apart of). You still refuse to explain your actions before doing them.Lucia Black (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that's what you do when you merge or split pages, you merge the edits done by the people who did them and give credit. It is part of the CC-BY-SA license under which Wikipedia operates. Lucia, your 'mediation' claim was rejected by volunteer and it was pointless, you had three ongoing 'DR' matters at once. Enough with the drama, like it or not, you had your chances to update and maintain the page, you do not understand policy and a great many articles are really poor because of conflicts exactly like this one. You don't compromise, you don't suggest changes, you don't even attempt to engage. You try to keep the status quo that you created because its the only way you can prevent changes to 'your' article. I explained what I want to do and why I was doing it. This is not 'sudden' and this is not a surprise, I mentioned it above. I wanted 24 hours to do it, its been quite some time since then. Bring it do DR, I am positive you will only bring consensus against you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why we leave out so much content and do not deal with the two major universes in a meaningful way, only the original mangas the film adaption, the film's sequel and the novel prequel are really weird in relationship. Yet, we cannot even get the material condenses or sorted here, and its scattered so far and wide. I do not understand why you want to leave it this way Lucia, its terrible. And you, Ryulong, you get mad about me condensing material and reworking it, but you are assisting in duplicating content, spreading it thin and making it difficult for readers to sort through. You want material relevancy to be highest on this page and you want things to be given proper weight. Adding the manga page to this one and not expanding to cover all the ghost in the shell manga is your choice, I doubt that two of the mangas could stand under NOTE anyways. Combining them makes sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What are we leaving out? We primarily discuss the manga here. And we touch on the adaptations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you even believe the stuff you type? Your accusations towards me dont even make sense. I dont compromise? You did not provide a "true" compromise. A compromise is something both oppposing parties can live with. If i dont agree, its because you have not provided one. And even then i doubt theres room for any compromise at all. I dont suggest changes? How did you think these chain of conversations started? I mentioned the issues the article has. I dont attempt to engage? What do you mean by that? Im discussing things now arent I? Its the only way my changes will stick. I'm keeping status quo to prevent changes to my article? 1) i do not call this "my" article. Again, theres a different between stewardship and ownership as WP:OWN says. 2)This article looks horrible, i would very much welcome change, but change for the better not for the worst. But what i welcome most is my previous rendition that ive shown you (the one you almost buried, if i have not saved a copy).

The worst of it all is saying i "had" my chance to maintain this article. But thats where your wrong. Your previous spearheading and disregard of discussing and attempt to reach consensus made me incredibly wary of editing this article without it getting reverted. What did you expect? Be just like you and revert everything? If im going to edit, i have to know it will stick.Lucia Black (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a word of advice

From my own experience, just no ammount of discussion with LB will get you anywhere. When she settles on something, it's done. --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, Lucia Black and I are at least on the same page with keeping a singular article and not having one split off for the manga. What I would at least like in all of this is a succinct description of the issues both Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri have with the page in its current state rather than some massive essay I have no interest in reading when I get home from work.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I want what you want. For the article to focus on the manga and mention the media thats directly related to it. Idk if this is also what you want, but i want to shorten all other complimentary media of the other series to the point where they dont get their own section (unless directly related to the original manga. Example: PS video game and miscellaneous collections) and instead be mentioned in it's respected series' section because these series already have their own articles that cover that info. Example: SAC TV series mentions briefly of its manga, OVA, novels, and video games. i just reworked my rendition of what i would like the article to have: User:Lucia Black/Ghost in the Shell.Lucia Black (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How about you and Chris agree on anything between you two (I don't even care anymore), and then we all move on. --Niemti (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to show you how I just split Hugo (game show) from the previously massive Hugo (franchise), so youn can compare the content of these 2 articles. --Niemti (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What Niemti did with Hugo is essentially what I want to have done with SAC. There was no reason to keep the massive amount of game show related content on a franchise page. You refer to the content on the franchise and split off to cover in detail under WP:SS and WP:DETAIL and to keep in accordance with good writing without running afoul of WP:UNDUE. What I want is simple, clean and effective writing to properly relate different media, point to said media and move on. For that it reins in the and changes a lot of the related pages. Here's the breakdown.

• Ghost in the Shell be the franchise page. Branches off, will not contain ALL the manga information and splits off as per WP:UNDUE.
• Ghost in the Shell (manga) be the original manga page and possibly all manga/print media if it absolutely needs to be.
• Ghost in the Shell (film), Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence and Ghost in the Shell (video game) will be unchanged, but cleaned up a bit.
• Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex will detail the Stand Alone Complex universe which is the largest and most complex.
• Ghost in the Shell: Arise details the Arise universe. Film and manga included (as it is now)

What this means is the Ghost in the Shell can finally become a true franchise page and detail its content in a meaningful way. Right now it fails as a franchise page, we do not address or even acknowledge a good amount of information and crush the rest under the original manga material. What about the SAC manga? What about the SAC novels? What about that second SAC manga? What about the prequel novel for Innocence? What about the Animanga? What about the Arise manga? What about the characters? What about the design? Many things are wrong with this page. Lucia Black has ruined all manner of balance to Ghost in the Shell with her incorrect and highly damaging assertion that the manga page be removed in favor of its spot at franchise page: Ghost in the Shell. Now we have the franchise page effectively the entirety of the manga page.

1. The only plot discussed is the original manga plot and in the settings no less. The plot details is twice the setting and the mangas represent a fraction of the content.
2. In a section titled 'Creation and development' I'd EXPECT the franchise to detail the entirety of the franchise or allude to it in some meaningful way, not discuss only the original manga.
3. Publication history is about the original manga, nothing more. Why is it here?
4. List of graphic novels. Again, it doesn't even cover the other material, just Shirow's original.
5. Reception is ONLY the manga.
6. Art books was killed by Lucia the last time round.
7. Impact and influence is stripped from the manga and is so undeveloped.
8. Multimedia adaptations, this is where you begin to detail the franchise nature, but it is so unbalanced this is just some tacky and poor attempt to make it a franchise page after Lucia has her manga page dominate more then half the page.
9. To make matters worse and add insult to injury, perfectly good sourced content is being ripped out and not even attempted to be moved or addressed in a meaningful way.

So yes, this may be a long post, but Lucia Black has committed to destroying any meaningful portrayal and balance of the whole. Lucia and Ryulong are both intent on making the manga the focus when it should not be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It just seems to Lucia and myself that there is absolutely no reason to separate the manga from this page. This dare I say it "boner" for a "franchise only" article is blocking whatever headway we can make into reaching a consensus. To note your points:

1. Because this page is about the manga now
2. Because this page is about the manga now
3. Because this page is about the manga now
4. Because this page is about the original manga now
5. Because this page is about the original manga now
6. Don't know
7. Because this page is about the manga now
8. Because this page is now about the manga primarily and we do not need to provide extensive coverage to the other aspects here
9. In all of my previous edits to this page I have only removed the extensive prose covering things that are not necessary for any knowledge of the various adaptations. No references have been deleted.

There. There is no reason to have two relatively short articles about the same subject just to have a separate page dedicated to one aspect, the original aspect at that, of this item.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

40 kb is not a relatively short article about the manga. The majority of it prose. What you did to the franchise is horrible and I reject the idea that this page is about the manga now. It is not, this is a key foundation, the cornerstone of the material and the primary entry point for 60000 visitors a month. It should not be the manga with the franchise tacked on. Argue policy, which you do not do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We had two 20kb pages and now we have one 40kb page. And there needn't be any policy or guideline to police this decision. You quoting WP:UNDUE is just as false as Lucia Black quoting WP:SYN earlier. And with WP:SS (I have never seen this "guideline" befoe), does not say anything about what has or has not been done here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Too bad, SS is a guideline. "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline." Just as UNDUE is, improper balance weight and merging of content. I'm opening the DR now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Undue weight" means giving credence to only one non-neutral viewpoint. Not having an article be primarily on one neutral subject. And this article most certainly follows WP:SS other than your insistence that there be a separate article for The Ghost in the Shell, Man-Machine Interface, and Human-Error Processor from what you consider the "franchise" page. There is no reason this page can't do double duty.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said they should be separate pages for the individual mangas. The article is not NPOV and does suffer from being undue, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Thus your argument that the original manga be prominent despite the material comprising so little is a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I covered that by saying "The subject of this article is the manga". Stop twisting policy to justify makin this a "franchise article".—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the manga. This is the franchise, that tag at the top has been there for years. You can't just go and change it because its convenient for the argument. Your argument is not routed in policy or in readability, if you want this page about the manga go restore the manga article. As I did before. You seem unable to understand that a franchise article is important and proper, and it should be at the main incoming link as per other franchise cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK then. So, let's say I want to learn about all things GitS (not "everything about" GitS). Where do I go, on Wikipedia? To every single article? (Nearly 30 of them in the infobox right now.)

Or maybe another question. Why is the original game such a small part of Halo (series) (GA)? The original Halo doensn't even have a separate sub-section, it's just a small paragraph buried in the sub-section "Original trilogy" of the section "Game series". And it's even a franchise that is all set in the same universe, same timeline (as far as I know). Then there's List of Halo media, etc. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That is a decent comparison because unlike the Blood articles, Halo does not just detail the first game which spawned the franchise, you need to go to Halo: Combat Evolved, but you ideally know that's what you want, but most people are probably interested in current works or the history of the whole. It makes no sense to have Ghost in the Shell with so many different media be solely about the manga. Its a disservice to the reader and needlessly disruptive. The manga should have the manga page, but it should not be on THIS page. Per all the policies I linked to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and people go to Halo (series) (173393 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 1354 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.) MUCH more than to Halo: Combat Evolved (41370 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 9896 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.). More than 4 times more traffic. (The latter article is FA.) --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey GITS, still had 80000 hits last month, and while I deleted the evidence of that for the DRN page, it was only because the volunteer hasn't opened discussion yet. Prior to the redirect and when restored it had about 5000 views. Either way the 12x difference before the mess began is significant and SAC has been viewed 27558 times in March. Which is significant. Arise has had over 10000 views in the last 30 days. Clearly, the original manga is not the reason people go to the GITS article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page hits and comparisons with completely different articles do not make an argument. There is nothing anywhere on Wikipedia that says this page cannot do double duty in explaining the original manga and also discussing the various animated and interactive adaptations. Manga and anime articles have a completely different standard template than a video game series.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm, that is not entirely correct. Page relevance and prominence should be tied to their relative purposes and the best way to show if a page is functioning properly is if that source page facilitates links that are otherwise difficult to find and how those pages have related traffic. Its not an advanced concept, but there is a correlation and the pitfalls of this page extends to the other pages. A clear and well laid out page would be more useful and allow readers to find the content they want more readily and with better readability. You did not even know about wiki stats and why this page is of high priority to fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the fact that they have their own article, or rather you refuse to see them relevant. No franchise article is going to give extensive detail to each individual piece, especially if they dont have their own article. The problem is that all the original spin-offs stem from the original manga, so splitting the manga would just be a near duplicate of the main article (only more organized and allows main article tag to serve a purpose). Also compiling the different universes and plot.Lucia Black (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New take

As it was somewhat contentious, I've taken the extensive publication history and list of chapters back to "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" before moving the page to its current title List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. This brings this article more in line with the form that other articles on anime and manga take.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a start, but I don't really know why we need a list of 'chapters' when we typically go by entire volumes for manga. I'm still working on the actual suggestion of the franchise page, which hopefully will be taken as a better variant then the current form. Either way, the publication information is good to have, but overly detailed for this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So we can rename it to "volumes". We're still not turning this into a "franchise page".—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Get consensus, you are edit warring. The matter is at DR and the page should remain as it was. Do not edit war anymore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Where am I edit warring? I'm trying to compromise here and you're just trying to get me blocked. That's BS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not compromising you are edit warring. I reverted your change of scope, you replaced it. I invoked BRD and reset it one last time to the original and informed you of it. You reverted it again. This is edit warring. It does not have to be 3RR, but you have made other changes to this page and have removed my edits placing you at and past 3RR by various interpretations. Furthermore this is the scope of the DR, you are changing something under discussion during the dispute resolution. That is edit warring in of itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We agreed on the change of scope last week. You boldly edited to undo all that crap without consensus. It takes two to tango, buddy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is far too short, and the majority of the details are there. I also initially made a List of Ghost in the Shell chapters, but now im leaning towards just to leave the template there in the manga article. Basically all the important information is split off. Its best to leave in the main page.Lucia Black (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no satisfying either of you. This is at least a starting point to discuss the other manga that have been released.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I did not agree to this. The page was edited by YOU, today. [11] You changed the scope. I filed DR. And I reverted it back to the original as per BRD and that it was the original.[12] From there it was over. You readded it here. [13] That's edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you are indeed stating that my edits to the hatnote are edit warring and proving my previously stated point to Lucia that neither of you will be satisfied until the page is exactly how you each both want it. I suggest you read WP:LAME.

And as I was going to add to my previous comment, Lucia, this "important information" I assume you're referring to is just really excessive detail on the different publication dates and translations that are best suited to a separate article solely dedicated to the release information.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, if it was a mistake, revert yourself as you claim at the DRN. Its not a big deal, but you have not yet done so which seems like it is not a mistake. Not sure why you are so worried and deleting every comment to your page (we can see it anyways) because of this. If it was a mistake, revert yourself, let the process go and discuss it as we are now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a mistake as much as it is I thought I forgot to change it in the first place. And I'm really surprised that you're taking an edit to the hat note as completely changing the scope of the entire article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As a possible compromise I've just changed it from {{about}} to {{other uses}}.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen, you do what you do, you are responsible for your own edits. You have broken 3RR with the other edits and you have edit warred since the DR was filed about this exact issue. I do not accept this alteration. Restore the original. You have made identifying the matter even harder because of that edit. As the other uses was there previously as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a fucking hatnote. It doesn't have to say what the scope of the article is unless there's confusion. The dabpage is probably not necessary anyway as it's just variations of this central subject.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the list takes a huge chunk of the manga information. If you want the article to focus on the manga, its best to not split this info off. Plus, the table is only three volumes long far too short for it to even have a subsection. The only thing keeping the List of Ghost in the Shell chapters to becoming Ghost in the Shell (manga) is plot and reception. Its unnecessary and causes more harm than good (for your previous intentions on wanting the article focus on the manga). It may appear excessive, but if you readd it completely, it shows important info on the relationship between gits2-gits1.5.Lucia Black (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone even know what they want done anymore. Name some reasons why this page should not be a franchise, use the policy and not 'because this page is now about the manga' because policy says otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy that's going to help either case. So while you ask for policy, you can't back up yours with a policy either (that will directly help your case). Policies won't cover specific organization structure or why this article can't be a franchise. However, we have guidelines that are commonly accepted that help our case. WP:SS is extremely helpful guide. We know that the Ghost in the Shell franchise isn't just made up of mismatch of media between different series. Its literally made up of different series. We also know each series has their own respected article and extensively cover their respected spinoff media. Making a very clear and consistent way of organizing for the main article. Making a manga article (The original media) would still need to cover these series as they were all based/inspired by the original. Making the franchise and manga article virtually the same, only with the franchise lacking organization and proper linkage to its respected article (basically this would act as if there was no article). So WP:SS helps us define what's key.

Beside the point, another reason why I'm against the split to "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" is that publication history section isn't really much of a publication history section. More like a publication summary.Lucia Black (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My argument is rooted in policy and while there is no explicit reading for media franchises, we have policy to go on. WP:SS and WP:DETAIL which you touted so much. Due to the highly confusing nature of the media which bears the same name for different media, it is far easier to summarize all information in one location. GITS is the major topic, other media are sub-topics, all connected to the franchise. Since you continue to object without citing policy I'll add another, from WP:CFORK "..as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." The ability to read and understand the material is paramount, your forcing of this to be manga ruins this. If I go make a (franchise) page, you'd still flip because you think the franchise is not notable, which is utterly and completely wrong. Argue policy and reason based on that policy. Stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid, Lucia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFORK is acceptable and thats exactly what we've been doing. You have not used a specific policy a guideline that helps you, infact they continue to backfire. All sub-topics are covered in the main article, and properly summarized. Its not that you want a Gits article with linkage to the subarticles, its that you want all gits treated as if it was the main article (within the same page). You want a GITS manga/S.A.C/Arise/film article despite them already having their own articles. And that convoludes the article. Theres a difference between having a summary of that article, and spreading that info all over the article (alongside other article so-called summaries). It's not really "summarizing". The manga being the main focus of the main article, organizes at the most optimum level. You're issues arent disorganization. You're issues are that you believe its undue weight. And its not, they have their respected article and link to them accordingly.Lucia Black (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What are the current standings? I'm not sure what everyone's proposal is and I'm a non-exprt on the subject, but why not just organize the franchise page like Gundam. I don't mean exactly though, Gundam is a mess. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll explain in your talkpage to avoid deviating the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(Eced) In short my idea is:

• Ghost in the Shell be the franchise page. Branches off to relevant articles, concise overview of the topics.
• Ghost in the Shell (manga) be the original manga page and possibly all manga/print media if it absolutely needs to be.
• Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex will detail the Stand Alone Complex universe which is the largest and most complex.
• Ghost in the Shell: Arise details the Arise universe. Film and manga included (as it is now)

This will streamline the content and a brief, super concise and stripped down version is currently viewable as a basic draft at my sandbox. User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. Thats not a franchise article.Lucia Black (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Context is needed. What are you trying to say? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand both sides of the arguments. Both would work and are not against policies as far as I know. I prefer Chris' franchise version, which matches my ideas and the Gundam article, which has a strong divide between all three franchises; The argument of redundancy does not apply if there is a concise overview. I will probably drop out of this discussion if it continues to be a war between personal opinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For me it is not a matter of personal opinions, because, like you, I see the matter from the reader's perspective. This is the most highly searched term and the main topic, it should function as such. Lucia Black does not believe that a concise overview of the material is warranted and has previously tried to purge all redundancy. That attitude is the reason why Lucia merged the manga page to this page. Its nothing personal to me, but her willful ignorance of policy and refusal to respond to them are why I am upset at this filibustering of otherwise key improvements.

I do not know enough about Gundam to make any effort to tackle that page unless I research it for about a solid month. Though it seems the majority of our anime and manga articles are in seriously poor states with entire concepts like Hentai being outright laughable affairs if it wasn't for how alarmingly inaccurate they are. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Chris.To explain plot, setting, and every single difference between series is not a franchise article. Thats not what makes a franchise article, a franchise article also attempts to organize all media appropriately and allows their respected article. What you propose isnt summarizing the "key" aspects of the articles into the main article, what you want is to summarize every aspect of the article alongside the other. That falls closer to a fan-guide. The article you want is no difference on how S.A.C. article is set up but now with the addition of constant explanation rather than allowing the subarticles to explain it themselves.

@Dragon.Difference between Gits and Gundam, Guundam all fall under the same universe, and as is, Gundam article is a huge mess, filled with OR and its best to make a complete revision. It is most definitely not a good example. Gits however has distinct alternate tellings, some subtle, some drastic and properly organized in the main article. There is also a handfull of them, unlike Gundam where has practically uncountable. Gits has precisely 3 series focused on a specific alternate telling and share the same name. Most importantly, its subarticles are now multimedia pages, and cover the respected article.Lucia Black (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, that is not what I am trying to do. I'm not making a fan-guide, to even suggest that is to misrepresent everything I have said. Are you able to communicate in English effectively, because the semantics of policy and writing seems lost on you. I'm serious. Your argument about OTHERSTUFFEXISTs was not even relevant, yet you act like it was. That and the cited policies you note contradict or defeat your own arguments, and you invoke them in that very argument. Lastly, I'm not familiar with Gundam, but I can tell you quite simply, Gundam is not a single universe. Looking at the page would tell you otherwise. It is far more complex then GITS. GITS is a warm-up in comparison to the amount of editorial work needed to bring Gundam up to GA or FA level. Its monumental even! Also... I am seriously concerned about your competence, because the comment you just wrote above seems to be endorsing the key fact I have been trying to address for months. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(Also replying to Lucia) What I suggested was to treat them as different franchise, not universes, regardless of its inner content. I already know the Gundam article is a mess. I don't edit it, ever, but it's the main idea that counts (And having GA in manga and in video games I know what quality looks like). Currently, I have no idea what the branch off articles will look like, since this discussion is only focusing on the franchise. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay... I can see SAC and Arise doing that, because they are already doing exactly that. The issue is the first works for me. Specifically, the original manga, the based upon film, the unrelated to manga-and-sequel-to-film Innocence, and the unrelated original storyline videogame. While I am content to let them exist as their own separate pages, I'd also like to have a solid, firmly rooted franchise page that gives proper context. Context is half the battle and is the single biggest issue that Lucia Black seems unable to address. Previously, Lucia was unable to even comprehend my question about the relationship between media, despite Lucia having personally updated such concepts prior to this, and said relationships are already detailed on the individual articles. A strong, singular franchise page which is clear and concise will allow for clean up on other articles of unrelated media and improve clarity and reader comprehension of the subject. I think everyone knows the articles are flawed, but doesn't know how to achieve a better result. My sandbox contains a heavily condensed version which relates these three distinct 'universes' or 'series'. How we even define this is up in the air, but I want this page to be fixed first. All the others will be easy then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Chris.It doesnt matter whether you intended to or not, thats what it is. I know my policies, saying i dont wont help you. You use terms of other policies and dont even know how much of a double edge sword they are. "Oh I'm Chris, WP:CFORK says this. I'm in accordance with WP:CFORK, you're not" thats how you sound like. You quote the policies, but they dont necesarily help you. In fact, they actually harm your case. Did i ever say OTHERSTUFFEXIST was a policy? No. And you yourself provided an essay yourself (one that wasnt really in a nutshell). And i brought it up as a precaution because knowing you, you would bring a completely irrelevant article and you did, such as Sailor Moon, which had no similarities to the type of topic Ghost in the Shell had. So dont use that example for me not knowing policies. Its a bad arguing tactic. I'm perfectly competent. And its ridiculous to believe im anything but an average well versed editor.

@Dragon.And the main idea of Gundam is still bad. There has to be a better simpler way of organizing that article. Also there are already branch articles for the respected series. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Ghost in the Shell: Arise for example.Lucia Black (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)