Talk:Ghost in the Shell/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Relation to other series in Chronology section[edit]

Should it be mentioned that other Masamune series (Real Drive, Appleseed) have a confirmed universe connection? Discuss.

Further Discussion on the question of Timeline/Continuity[edit]

Contrary to what YourMessageHere said, the GITS SAC novel "The Lost Memory" does mention the Laughing Man. In fact there's a whole recap of the Laughing Man story, as well as reference to the Nanao A and the attempted assassination of Superintendent General Daido. Aramaki and Kusanagi discuss whether the "Good Morning Terrorist" case (which is what they are investigating in the novel) is related to the "Laughing Man" case, but decide that the two are unrelated. At the end of the book, the author Junichi Fujisaku writes that after having finished writing episode 6 of the TV series, he had ideas left over, and he used to those to write the book as a new "episode", rather than just retelling the existing episode. Even the dates in the novel place it as happening at the same time as the series - the first "Good Morning Terrorist" incident occurred in Oct. 2028, but Section 9 did become involved until an incident dated Sept. 2030.

The last GITS novel, White Maze, is supposed to take place in 2030. There is a scene in it where Motoko gives a virus infected Tachikoma Natural Oil as a treat, but I don't know if this means that it is before episode 12 (when Natural Oil is forbidden to be given to the Tachikomas again) or after it (Natural Oil makes the Tachicomas unperdictable, and she was trying to get the Tachi's AI to respond to a virus as a human would).

The middle novel, Revenge of the Cold Machines, is the hardest to place into the timeline, and may even be proof that the novels are not cannon. The 3rd story, also called "Revenge of the Cold Machines" mentions the "Laughing Man" incident. But in the first story, "Double Targets" Togusa mentions holding his wife and baby daughter, which would be fine if these were part of the manga's story line. But in the 2030 of GITS SAC, Togusa's daughter is about 3-5 years old, and he has a baby son too.

Regarding the video games - the 1997 game has Fuchikomas, so it's based on the manga, even if it doesn't actually follow it. The other games are GITS SAC spin-offs, I believe.

Finally, the three main continuities are separate. Trying to put them together is futile, especially since the creators themselves acknowledge that they are separate. In the GITS SAC Official Log #1 there's an interview with GITS SAC executive producer Mitsuhisa Ishikawa where he talks about "standing independently" of the film version and "challenging" Masamune Shirow "head on". Even the character designs go from being very much like what was in the comics, to something more realistic, but still softer than the movie.

And while the movie can be said to be a serious adaptation of the manga, GITS SAC has become it's own entity - taking bits and peices of the manga but never full story lines. At this point, even if GITS SAC were to start using the manga's plots, since Motoko is already close to what she was in vol. 2 (Chroma persona, remote body control, net diving AIs, resigned from section 9 etc), so it would still end up being different.

Redstranger 1:30, 22 OCT 2008 (EST)


Can anyone provide any definitive information on the order each film and TV series has inside the context of the complete story? This information would be helpful for anyone new to the show trying to start from the beginning and watch it all in the originally intended sequence. Chadstarr 8:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there are at least 3 different continuities in GitS and all of them were not necessarily created in chronological order. There's the Manga continuity, there's the Film continuity and the SAC continuity. There may be others depending on future works and what you include as "canon" works.
Here's the three continuities, in chronological order (relative to their story, not dates of creation).
Manga Series:
-> Ghost In The Shell (1991 manga)
-> Ghost in the Shell 1.5: Human Interface Processor (originals 1991-6, collected edn. 2003)
-> Ghost in the Shell 2: Man/Machine Interface (2001 manga)
Film Series:
-> Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)
-> After The Long Goodbye (2005 novel)
-> Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (2004 film)
Stand Alone Complex series:
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex - The Lost Memory (2006 novel)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex - Revenge of the Cold Machines (2006 novel)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex - White Maze (2006 novel)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex (2002-3 TV series)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex (2004 PlayStation 2 game)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex (2005 PlayStation Portable game)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig (2004 TV series)
-> Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society (2006 TV movie)
-> as-yet unknown further SAC project(s), which could also be prequels
(I am assuming that the events of the novel trilogy precede the Laughing Man incident, as it seems important enough that it might be mentioned. I didn't like the book much so I may have skipped or missed references, however I have not read either the second or third books so I am assuming they follow the first chronologically. There is confusion over the two SAC games; the PSP game is totally different from the PS2 one and follows it as a direct sequel.)
Odds and ends:
-> Ghost in the Shell (1997 Playstation Game) (This is probably part of the film continuity; sadly, I've never played it. It may however belong in the manga continuity or may apply to both or neither continuities. Can someone enlighten me/us?)
-> The Laughing Man and The Individual Eleven compilation DVDs (I've not seen these but I doubt they contain any new material. Since they must necessarily omit much of the detail, they exist more as alternative versions for the time-poor Japanese fan. They're not really a seperate continuity, even if the timeframe of The Individual Eleven as summarized in the episode list is out of kilter with 2nd Gig proper, but they don't tell the whole SAC story.)
-> Tachikomatic Days shorts (2002-5 shorts) (don't really have a continuity, being purely for fun)
-> Ghost in the Shell live-action project that apparently is currently under discussion (I'm guessing it'll be a new continuity, not an extension of an existing one.)
This seems to me somewhat like what you are after, I agree this might be helpful for new readers/viewers. YourMessageHere 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that there are three separate story arcs that have little or no relation to each other? The reason I asked the original question in the first place is that I have the two TV series, Stand Alone Complex and Stand Alone Complex 2nd gig, and I have the original 1995 movie as well as the Stand Alone Complex movie and I was just wondering their order. It's pretty obvious that the original movie comes first, but does the Stand Alone Complex movie come in between the first and second gig TV series or after them both? On your list it shows them as after. --Chadstarr 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. The manga strictly has no connection to the movie story wise. And the first two movies have no connection to the series. The series, Stand Alone Complex runs in a separate timeline and continuity to the two main movies. The movie Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society follows on from the end of the series Stand Alone Complex: 2nd Gig (the second season of the TV series). Mind you though I haven't seen it yet it's considered that you don't need to have watched the series to see the Solid State Society movie though it's strictly just a very long episode. Ben W Bell talk 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Story arcs is the wrong phrase, really, as the three continuities never intersect. Story arcs strictly speaking follow one another. Three completely seperate versions of the same initial idea, taken to different eventual situations would be better. Three alternative universes is another way to think about it. In each continuity, Kusanagi begins as part of section 9, but because of what she finds while acting under its orders, she leaves and becomes a fugitive from Section 9; but what leads up to and follows this point differs massively between continuities. Technically, you don't need to have seen the two series to understand SSS, but I imagine it makes much less sense if you haven't. YourMessageHere 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Now this is actually making sense. Thanks guys. --Chadstarr 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so how should this be integrated into the article? I made a version with an explanatory intro and links to the respective pages on my sandbox page but in order for this to work, I think the key factor will be formatting, and formatting on this thing seems dangerously close to being like actual programming. I can't do anything more than basic stuff to save my life. So, does anyone else want to have a go? Also, while I think it's clear there's no reason for making a new page and this is the page where it belongs, should it have a new section in this article, or go somewhere in an existing part? YourMessageHere 02:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For anybody reading this discussion after the fact who still doesn’t quite get it, the Japanese are especially fond of “alternate universes.” Robin Hood might be a good example that’s more mainstream – over the last century, there have been many different Robin Hood movies and TV series. The only thing they really have in common is the same main characters (e.g. Robin, Marian, the Sheriff) and general setting (e.g. medieval England). The stories themselves don’t follow any particular order; they usually have nothing whatsoever to do with one another and each production presupposes itself to be the only relevant one.
As an aside… Story elements are often recycled between productions. One such example in GITS is Kusanagi’s departure from Section Nine. The manga continuity sees her merge/reproduce with The Puppeteer and leave Section Nine in the original manga series, only to become again involved in their affairs in the Human Error Processor manga series and then to have multiple identities both detached and involved with them in the Man Machine Interface manga series. The movie continuity sees her leave merge/reproduce with The Puppeteer and leave Section Nine seemingly never to return, although keeping an eye on Batou. The SAC continuity at present doesn’t involve The Puppeteer at all, but sees Kusanagi leave for soul-searching after her interaction with Kuze. Phew! If this didn’t smack so much of Original Research, I’d work it into the article as “Shared Story Elements” or something like that. — NRen2k5 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one point that deserves to be contended IMO - the terminal episode to GiTS: SAC 2nd Gig is nearly identical to the opening scene of the GiTS trade paperback manga which launches the puppeteer plotline (the "cherry blossom off", blocky fuchikoma models, departing when Section 9's budget is approved). I feel that this is an attempt to integrate the two story lines despite the "Robin Hood" nature of manga/anime universes. I feel that there is an element of a fictional canon here and that it is possible for all of the GiTS works to be considered canon with the exception of the first film. This is undoubtedly confusing to the casual fan who has only been exposed to the film. KarlThePagan (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure these really belong on the page, precisely because they're uniformly positive. If someone could find a negative review, it should probably be included; otherwise they should probably all be removed. -- Ian Maxwell, 2004 Aug 14, 00:51 (UTC)

I agree. It is just wikipedia is not like other fun sites. Is there any convention in wikipedia regarding reviews? -- Taku 01:01, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
one negative aspect of this page is that it hails ghost in the shell as if it was a groundbreaking philosophical movie, in a generous way: it was, but in many other ways it was just another overly hyped anime (not saying that it was a bad movie here, but...). The movie suffers from many manga stereotypes, such as the introduction of a world of slutty women, starting with our slutty main character. In the world of manga, where every girl goes proudly to skimpy-skirts high school for the slutty student, it is not new to see yet another movie with these characteristics. Other things that it shared from several other animes was the violent aspect of it, almost pornographicly violent (yup, its a manga alright), whenever there was a slight chance for showing naked girls and/or violence, the movie felt the duty of exploiting it to the maximum, leave very little importance to whatever story there was in it. speaking of that, the story was clustered in one small drop, as it happends in many manga-to-anime movies (as in akira, where you had to re-watch the movie again for many aspects that where briefly explained, mainly because most of the movie time was spent on violent scenes rather than in triying to give any mayor importance to the plot, i recall several characters that were showned diying in gruesome violent ways at the end, and all i had was one question in my head "who the hell were they?"), and last, and very importantly, Ghost in the Shell was in no ways the first "philosophical" sci-fi movie, the first one was Blade Runner in questioning what it meant to be human (to some lesser degree, 2001 could be considered the very first, although from here to there, one must wonder if 2001 could be considered sci-fi). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
I could say many things, but I shall limit myself to the following:
  1. Motoko Kusanagi loses what one might call her "sluttiness" as one goes from manga to movie to TV. Her lesbian interlude in the manga gets cut in the English translation (and in the French too, surprisingly enough), "toned down" into a cyberbrain drug trip. Why drugs are more acceptable than sex—and violence more acceptable than both—I don't pretend to know. The first time the manga is adapted (for the 1995 movie), Motoko becomes a loner. She stays that way through two seasons of Stand Alone Complex, though she clearly has a past with a couple young women and, by episode 25, some tension with Batou. Nothing consummated on screen, though—just her sharing memories with the Laughing Man! By the time we get to GiTS 2: Innocence, well—if anyone can actually get off watching the Hadaly sexroids, you're a better horny Freudian than I am.
A few points on this bit. In the most recent release of the GitS manga the lesbian sex + drug trip (it appears to be both, as they're recording the experience to sell as some sort of virtual porn movie) has been re-inserted. Also, in SAC season 1 her girlfriends are laced throughout the series (she visits them and is seen putting clothes back on before looking at old footage of the first Laughing Man incident; the nurse at the hospital where she's supposed to get her new body is one of the same girls, etc). Obviously it isn't as explicit as in the manga. Furthermore, Motoko and Batou do still have that implied but never said outright sexual tension in SAC, and while she remains aloof and "loner-like" through most of SAC, there's points where the affection is more obvious than others. Batou's affection for her is, though, much more blatant, and her relationship with Kuze is much more explored than her relationship with Batou. As far as I remember, none of the GitS media that is canon ever show them together. Nijyo 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Metropolis (1927), The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Forbidden Planet (1956), Dr. Strangelove (1964) and Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451 (1966) all have philosophical content people still talk about. If we include television series, the original Star Trek (first aired 1966) and The Prisoner (1967) certainly count. Each one of these includes computers and/or robots which display some living characteristics. Moreover, Metropolis features a human mind being copied into a robotic body (Maria into Futura); The Prisoner shows Number Six's mind connected to a computer and even copied into another man's body; and in Star Trek, Spock mind-melds with the Nomad space probe (among many examples I could give). All of these works (or "texts", if you're a postmodernist) examine and blur the distinctions among humans, robots and aliens—even Fahrenheit 451, if you consider humans "roboticized" by their desires for simplistic, orderly lives.
  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey is not "sci-fi". The ugly coinage "sci-fi" properly refers to trashy material confused with true science fiction, which is abbreviated SF. Yes, I am being a pedant, and quite possibly a crusty and outdated one too. See if I care. 2001 is SF, mystical and rapturous, alternating between darkness and sunshine.
Cheers, Anville 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to be a pedant, but it's not ok to be a bad pedant. SF = Sci-Fi = Science fiction. You are imagining that "SF" is a special, superior category of fiction, somehow differentiated from the unworthy "sci-fi", when they are simply synonyms.

Can you elaborate about why 2001 is not "just" sci-fi? Mystical alien obelisks with supernatural powers sounds like bog-standard science fiction to me.

Asteroceras 12:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In My Opinion Wikipedia should stay away from linking to the typical review pages, particularly the typical low brow, unintelligent, focused more on fan service and if it will "get someone off" than the actual intellectual side of the story. I know this is a little strong worded. I've just read too many reviews on netflix recently. (Reading the reviews of Elfen Lied only one of the writers managed to grasp that the show was a dark complex nior that is intended to leave the viewer crying every single time they remember it.)
The type of fandom that I would like to see linked from wikipedia pages on fiction, other than of course the various official sites, are pages with actual in depth analysis of the story and deep personal insight of what struck a chord. Even things like speculation about the unanswered left for the viewer to fill in themselves. This is what brings respect to fiction. We should treat movies and TV series as we would a good novel, not as some lesser art form. As a new form of media we should treat other newer forms of media with the respect other people have failed to, and point to the people who have granted such respect.
Sure there is the few negative critics with good insight as to why they don't like something, and those we should link to, but what should be left out is the typical nonobjective narrow-minded slander reviews that certain people write just because they don't like the fact that a piece of fiction defies their preconceived notions about the world should be left for the reader to find at the nearest video review site where they can find a plethora of them. RuediiX (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Film series[edit]

The film series should have a dedicated article overviewing the two current films, at Ghost in the Shell (anime film series). Currently it is a dab page... one that Ned Scott wants to delete. 05:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, why? Other movie articles are not set up this way. If you want an overview then use Ghost in the Shell, which should be an overview of the whole Ghost in the Shell series. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Some other movie series are set up that way. An overview article on the continuity, and linkages between the movies in the series. Individual articles focus on the series. There is an entire category for these types of articles: Category:Film series ; a good example would be : Final Destination series or The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) or Critters (film series) or Subspecies series - 05:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Incase you haven't noticed.. but we have two articles that can do that, Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation). Personally I feel that Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) should be deleted and the task handled by Ghost in the Shell alone as an "overview". Also, the film disambig page is about to be deleted per the AfD.. -- Ned Scott 08:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it got deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost in the Shell (anime film series). -- Ned Scott 06:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
We should have an overview article, not just a dab page. It would be an article on the film continuity, as we have an article on the TV continuity. There should also be an article on the manga continuity. Each of these continuities are distinct and different. The GitS article should be a general overview of everything. More specific overviews would go into the sub articles. Each article (manga, film, TV series) would get their own articles. 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The DAB page is easy to read, so as not to cause excess aggravation for people looking for a quick link to their preferred article. 05:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the new movie Ghost in the shell: Solid State Society to the intro. Its been out for a while now, and i'm surprised it was'nt already there. Slaten 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The film series and the anime series are actually pretty misleading on the wiki page. The wiki includes "ghost in the shell: innocence" as being part of the film series which just isn't true. Any enthusiast would understand that the first film pertains to the Puppet master series. The first season of the anime series entails the laughing man scenario while the second season deals with the 11th individual series. Now then, knowing the Anime series are stand alone (despite numerous recalls in "ghost in the shell: Solid state society" film) it is obvious that the film series goes "ghost in the shell" (1995) being of the puppeteer series, "Ghost in the shell: innocence" (2004) being of an entirely stand alone film, and "Ghost in the shell: solid state society" (2007) finishing out the puppeteer series.

Translation of 攻殻[edit]

wwwjdic and the japanese wikipedia agree with the pronounciation of '攻殻' (koukaku), but the only reading I can find for those two characters together is that of the manga. What's the source of the reading 'mobile' for koukaku? --moof 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the 'mobile' comes from the kidōtai part, with kōkaku supplying the 'armored' part. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that Shirow created the word, based on an actual word of the same pronunciation, 甲殻, which means "carapace; shell; crust", as in 甲殻類 kōkakurui "crustaceans". (As you may know, the word crustacean comes from the Latin crusta "crust".) The Kanji 攻 kō- in Shirow's coinage means "attack" (as in the verb 攻める semeru), so literally it's "attack-shell". HTH. --SandChigger 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I take it that the difference between Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) is that Ghost in the Shell covers everything. If so, then the introductions needs to be clearer about the coverage of the articles. Perheps someone should merge Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) into this page. --Rumping 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Academic Influence[edit]

I reverted a removal of the academic influence section. As I noted in the edit summary - if verifiable, this section should stand. Though admittedly the second needs to be expanded as well. Opening floors for discussion. If possible I'd like to verify and cite notable occurrences of mention of Ghost in the Shell in academia. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if verifiable, section may need to be merged into "Impact and Influence." AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest you directly ask the editor who removed it, since they are the one who placed it in the article initially and apparently moved it from this article to the one specifically about the film. Pairadox (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll touch base with him on his talk page. I suppose the question is whether the academic influence was born exclusively from the original film or if it more of an over-arching thing that reflects the entire franchise. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see, that in this talk it's already become clear why I removed the section. The book talks specifically about the film. And seeing my knowledge of the entire franchise isn't big enough to make sure it also fitted in that subject, I switched it to the wiki article about the movie. But it isn't entirely misplaced on this page as well. M.A.Kampman (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. How about we remove the section "Academic Influence" for now but keep it here on the talk page until it can be further expanded upon and verified? I do recall reading an academic thesis a while back, and a couple of other articles. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell was analyzed together with William Gibson's book Neuromancer in chapter 4 "Orienting the Future" of Wendy Hui Kyong Chun's book "Control and Freedom - Power and Paranoia in the Age of Fiber Optics" (2006, The MIT Press). She looks at the aspect of high-tech Orientalism put forth in both works.

Well, I'd be fine with this solution and will keep my eyes open for more academic references to submit to this page. Also, I am in favor of merging the two pages together as suggested above. M.A.Kampman (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with it here. She may have looked specifically to the movie, but unless the themes in it are radically different her analysis would seem to apply to the entire franchise. Pairadox (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's another academic reference: Japanimation and Techno-Orientalism. Irodori (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghost defined[edit]

I have only recently discovered this series in the Stand Alone Complex series as well as the Puppet Master movie and was hoping to find a bit more explanation of the Ghost aspect of the title. The simple assumption is that it refers to a soul, but the references in the various episodes seem to suggest a more sublime yet direct connection (such statements as "My ghost is telling me..." make this suggestion to me at least).

If anyone is aware of references discussing this aspect I would like to see some edits in the article covering a basic intro to the Ghost concept, just to clear up any confusion. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, its usage is usually synonymous to “mind” as separate from the body and physical brain… but that the character of Motoko has a habit of using it in introspection to refer to the soul as separate from the mind. I think the first place to look for a succinct definition (that won’t present an original research dilemma) would be Shirow’s Author’s Notes from the mangas. — NRen2k5 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To me "Ghost" refers to "spontaneous instinctual intelligence" usually it's a trace instinctive level of intelligence.
To give further almost tangent-like detail, if a human replaced the majority with AI-enchanced hardware, they would loose a large portion of the feedback loop in the emotion complex of the brain, specifically the adrenals. This would render them slightly "numb" to their emotions. However, the brain will adapt to this, as any neuron. The neuronoid hardware, designed to interact would likely have a lot of hardware in it to manage the rather complex and sometimes conflicting data from the body, otherwise you would result in a cyborg that acts like it has parkensons desease. If you saw 2nd gig you will see some mention of this problem in early cyborgs.
This is probably one of the first science fictions to recognize this potential problem with robotic prosthetics. All this hardware would eventually pick up patterns in the brain and learn that it performs better when it feeds back "fuzzier" data about things to indicate that it is uncertain. Any part that acquired such behavior would quickly resume the function of that instinct providing the same "gut intuition" that was lost due to the loss of the adrenal glands. However, the brain would then be required to make sense of these variances of the signals and complete the loop to provide the function. That loop that creates what would be recognized in a human as "gut intuition" is what would be called a "Ghost."

BTW, the not knowing that the Tachicoma's are capable of producing ghosts and the related emotions in themselves is a dead giveaway that it is either before or in a "like universe" to the GITS movies.RuediiX (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

GitS Live Action[edit]

Found this info on 4chan. Link: Legit? Should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I had read in some other places about this also, I imagine it is legit. Look around a bit and see what info you can find. Lets hope if it is true that they'll do a good job. If they're using real life actors though, it's going to be a bit weird having a second English voice, whomever it was they chose for the English dub fits fairly well I think, though I prefer the original Japanese. They better also maintain the philosophical side which adds so much awesomeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see Spielberg tackle GitS, but until a film is actually made, the project is just vaporous talk and speculation. Let's wait until a live action version actually exsts. (talk)lynxx —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC).


shouldn't the manga and novel's be merged in this article?

Impact and Influence[edit]

Perhaps for the "Impact and influence" section we can add a picture of a side-by-side comparison of Ghost In The Shell and the Matrix. There are plenty of examples on this website: NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Laughing Man and Individual Eleven Films[edit]

These two films are definitely omitted. Even though, they are reedits, they are significant enough to not simply be omitted. I´d also sepperate thing s nto their continuities, much like the Battlestar Galactica Article (though it admittedly has a significant lack of structure in the reimagining section). We have the Manga Series, the Film Series and the SAC Series/ Universe. Someone unfamiliat would have a quick overview on which connects to which. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


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 . 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.[1] 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 [2] is how it looked right before that GA, and I assume it was your intention to leave it like that. And this [3] 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[edit]

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)


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. 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. [4] 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.[5]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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 MUCH more than to Halo: Combat Evolved (41370 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 9896 in traffic on 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[edit]

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. [6] You changed the scope. I filed DR. And I reverted it back to the original as per BRD and that it was the original.[7] From there it was over. You readded it here. [8] 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 " 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)

This will be my last reply before I drop out of here, since I have no intention of pushing or pulling ideas. The two solutions are the most common structures for a franchise series; a third solution will not exist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, you just proved my point. OTHERSTUFFEXISTs is a terribly flawed and contradictory ESSAY for creation or deletion. The very fact you cited it is the problem. Okay? WP:COMPETENCE is also an essay, but at least this one has relevancy. Am I being ironic? Maybe, but I have raised serious concerns about your understanding of key editing guidelines. Dragonzero, I think we have to wait for DR to handle this. I know you wanted to stop this drama, but I do not think any amount of discussion will lead to any breakthroughs. I was A or B, but reject C. Lucia is stuck on C. Ryulong seems to be on B to C, but probably not A. Only me and Ryulong actually will compromise and discuss things, but add Lucia in and it moves too fast and the both of us get too confused and worked up. Sad, because I agree with Ryulong on many things... enough that Lucia was upset about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You keep sying stuff like this, and provide no ground. OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted. The point was to use it as a precaution to avoid sidetracking the discussion. The fact that i cited meant i didnt want any stupid comparisons detracting the main article. Also for once STOP BLAMING ME FOR EVERYTHING. Dont act like you and Ryulong are happy co-workers. Ryulong made edits you dont agree with, and both of you had heated battles. Initially Ryulong thought my "stubborness" caused your bold edits, but i informed him i was complete opposite. And i agreed with you on "something" (list of ghost in the shell chapters). This is pure slander. How can you say I'm C and Ryulong is B????? The guy hasnt said anything different. done....I'm not gonna be the scapegoat for this crap anymore. You two get in full disagreements all you like. Dont blame me for them.Lucia Black (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, you are wrong. It is not a valid policy, 'in a nutshell' is the TLDR and it cannot even keep THAT straight. You do not know what slander or scandalous mean either. I may disgree with Ryulong, but we can work things out. Everyone here is 'stubborn' because anyone who wasn't would have left this a long time ago. And yes, you did make matters worse with me and Ryulong. Even now I am refuting your arguments with evidence, you do not do this for my arguments and you do not try to make concessions or compromise. At a very basic level, you do not even know what I want to do, because you cannot even portray it. You have consistently failed to understand it, even when it was just above your own post. You keep on making excuses and make contradictions with no evidence. This is why I am frustrated by you, I understand your argument, but you do not understand mine. And even when I address the matters you attack my argument with ad hominems. And I actually spend the time to address those and counter them, you just repeat it. Your arguments simply don't stand up and that's why I cannot believe you are so stubborn as to stonewall this matter since January. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Enough, i never called it a policy. I used it as advice to avoid unnecessary and bad comparisons of other articles in which you insist irrelevant, but the fact that previous discussions you made really bad comparisons. It was only natural to bring it up again as a precaution. So i dont want to hear of this anymore. You misunderstood the whole point. I never called it a policy, never used it as one. You yourself used WP:CIR just to accuse me of being incompetent which is a highly opinionated essay and not really helpful, you just used as an excuse to say im incompetent. I dont want this being brought up again. You transformed it into something bigger and innacurate.

Did i use the word scandalous? If i did its probably an autocorrect issue, but i'm fairly sure i didnt use that word. Other than that i know the definition of slander and used it appropriately. I know my vocabulary, and simply saying "i dont know what they mean" doesnt make it true.

Also I'm pretty sure you dont know what compromise is. Wikipedia definition: To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. You have not provided a deal to me or Ryulong where anyone gives up something. Instead, you force your bold edit(s) down and expect us to wait until your done. And thats not how wikipedia works.

Also, stop making me out the bad guy and Ryulong your savior. Your not convincing anyone. What have you and Ryulong agreed with? He also believes this article should focus on the article.He also thinks the manga shouldnt be split. Ryulong so far has not agreed with you, so until you provide any specific difference between ryulong's idea and mine, your claims of able to work with Ryulong. And here's the reasons why:

If split the manga, the manga still needs to cover the adaptations of directly related to it. That includes every single original spin off series such as the original SAC media, original Arise media, the film adaptation, its sequel, its video game. Practically equal to the franchise page, only easier to navigate between series. The original spin offs still hold strong connection to the original manga enough to be related to it.

Another reason is: Your idea of making a franchise includes still having the same plot section, setting section, and characters section of a single series article only compile all of the info between series rather than just listing the different series in its respected media section. Showing the relationship between the series can be shown by making the original media the priority and briefly mentioning its complimentary media under it. What you want is explain the differences between the different series which is unnecessary. Lucia Black (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For DRN[edit]

This is merely to explain my point to DRN and allow me to go over 200 words.

Why the manga cannot be split: Ghost in the Shell is a distinct series. For one, its divided into series more than media. The original is the manga and although it is not the most popular one in the series, it still recognized as the original and recognizable enough to make the main article focus. Not only that but the original manga is still strongly connected to it's subseries. Ghost in the Shell film (although has significant changes) still being a direct adaptation of the manga's main plot. Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is loosely based on the manga chapter "Robot Rondo". Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex TV series is an alternate telling, however certain episodes are based off the original manga, specifically from the manga sequels/interquel Ghost in the Shell 2: Man-Machine Interface, Ghost in the Shell 1.5: Human-Error Prossesor. Ghost in the Shell:Arise is a prequel series (not confirmed to be from any specific subseries). So if the manga was split from the main article, it would only end up being a near duplicate from the main article. And I find that to be WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

Structural Issues: Common debate between me, Ryulong against ChrisGualtieri over the structure. And focus of the main article. Chris believes it should be a franchise article and cover all Gits media. And if Gits wasn't such a distinct series, I would approve. But I don't because there's just too much media between subseries. Example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex spin-off novel series, and spin off video games and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex manga adaptation and Ghost in the Shell:Arise manga adaptation. It would only convolude the article. It is also strongly unnecessary because each subseries has their own article. Ghost in the Shell (film) covers its respected media along with Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and Ghost in the Shell: Arise. I'm not against having brief mentions though. Similar to how Blood: The Last Vampire has a section dedicated to TV series and holds its alternate tellings: Blood+ and Blood-C, it mentions extensively the original version and briefly mentions that it has its own respected media. Ryulong agrees with me to some degree (if not completely).Lucia Black (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, per the suggestion at WP:DRN before the opening comments, "please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks." This is below the 2000 character count. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


With the stale DRN, The scope of this article should be the franchise page. WP:UNDUE WP:SIZE, WP:SS, specifically WP:DETAIL which suggests that Ghost in the Shell is the broad topic (the whole franchise) and that its three similarly titled works Ghost in the Shell (manga), Ghost in the Shell (film), Ghost in the Shell (video game) be linked to it and not have the original material be the most important subject, but the entire franchise as a whole. Over 20 works span this franchise, some of which not even listed here and main key aspects backed by reliable sources are deleted by Ryulong and Lucia Black to portray a minimal amount of content here. Franchise articles are not unique for complex universes that cannot be described or differentiated with by a single common name. This is seen in numerous articles Star Trek, Mortal Kombat, Halo, and even less complex universes like Sailor Moon. Gundam is a page that is in a quasi-franchise state, with several dozen series and movies receiving only interwiki links, an off-shoot list of games with more attention paid to its calendar, a card game and a few trivial 'cultural icons' compared to the whole. Ghost in the Shell is a complex and popular franchise, but everything has a place and an order, and a scant 5% of the material comprises 70%+ of the article because Lucia Black and Ryulong think the original media is more important then any other aspect of the franchise. That is a bad point of view. Lucia Black and Ryulong cannot defend their arguments based on policy, that is why this 'two-editor consensus' is touted with 'because we did it' in lieu of actual policy-based discussion. Ghost in the Shell is one of the most popular series in the world and is currently in the top 10000 of articles on Wikipedia. Even the Japanese Wiki uses a franchise format. [9] Despite having only a fraction of the content that is currently on the English Wikipedia! I'm not asking to move heaven and earth to have this page return to being what it once was for many years. All I want is a single spot to cover the contents of the franchise in a concise balance way, and detail the cultural importance and effects of the work. The same way that Pokémon is about the franchise and not the original games. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop splitting this god damn dispute across fifty pages and threads Chris. Stop insisting on this "franchise page" terminology. The coverage of the manga is so minimal that you have to copy half of what is on this page to turn the chapter list into a standalone article. WP:UNDUE does not cover this because UNDUE is about differing points of view on a subject and not about not focusing an article on a particular neutral subject. WP:SIZE is irrelevant because the page is only 40k. WP:SS is a guideline on how to write an article that may have extensive discussion about other subjects as is WP:DETAIL. "20 works" don't span this franchise. There's the original 3 manga books which this article is about with the chapter titles and some minimal plot at the list of chapters article (1 item), the GHOST IN THE SHELL film and Innocence (2 items), the video game (1 item), the 2 Stand Alone Complex seasons and film and video games (effectively 1 item), and now ARISE (1 item). Why are you constantly insisting that the three books that comprise the original work get their own article? Why does every other comment from you inclue the word "franchise"? Why do you keep twisting policy readings to make you arguments? There is nothing in any policy or guideline that forbids this page from being about the books titled THE GHOST IN THE SHELL, MANMACHINE INTERFACE, and HUMAN-ERROR PROCESSOR primarily, and then spend some time discussing the various adaptations that make up the media of Kōkaku Kidōtai.
Also, the Japanese Wikipedia page is primarily about the original manga, with separate stub-length articles dedicated for Man-Machine Interface and Human-Error Processor. It is their model that I attempted to follow here, as they have no separate page for the original manga, it being integrated with the primary article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not be upset, but yes there are over 20 works in this franchise

  1. Original manga
  2. 1995 film
  3. Innocence
  4. Animanga adaption (should be in Innocence)
  5. Novel tied to Innocence
  6. Unknown live action (no page needed)
  7. Unrelated Video game
  8. SAC series
  9. SAC video game 1
  10. SAC video game 2 sequel
  11. MMO game
  12. 攻殻機動隊S.A.C. サイバーミッション
  13. 攻殻機動隊 STAND ALONE COMPLEX by Mobage
  14. 攻殻機動隊 S.A.C. タチコマウォーズ also by Mobage
  15. Five additional SAC manga releases by Yuji Ikemoto/Yu Kinutani
  16. SAC movie solid state society
  17. Two OVA summaries (tied to season)
  18. Three novels by Junichi Fujisaku The Lost Memory, Revenge of the Cold Machines, White Maze
  19. 攻殻機動隊2 STAR SEED
  20. 攻殻機動隊 灼熱の都市
  22. Arise series + manga

Clearly over 20 works exist. I'm not saying we need 20 articles or one for every subject, but less quite clearly not even what exists is being noted. And the [10] is not about solely the manga, it may introduce the manga first (as it should), but half of the page is about terms and geography and the inconsistances brought up by 2nd gig's coverage of the background. Strip the definitions, geography and terminology out and you have what I want for Enwiki's ghost in the shell page. Notice that the publication and creation is not even listed on there? Our coverage is better than the Japanese Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This still doesn't convince me that a separate article just dedicated to the original manga is warranted outside of the list of chapters as it is now. Any spinoff media from SAC should be on the SAC pages so that cuts out about half of your list. And at least all of the terminology stuff is shunted off to the "Philosophy" and "World" pages on this project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with the terms and philosophy, but I disagree with GITS being about the original manga and that alone. It is a franchise with many different titles and works by different authors. It is important to cover them as part of the scope of 'Ghost in the Shell', the original manga is important as well, but it should not be the majority of the page. There is thing called balance, and Wikipedia doesn't even have entries on all the manga or the novels. Tell you what, since you were partial to having the manga and novels at another page, why not add the SAC mangas there? What is so important that the entire original work needs to dominate this page? I see no good reason for it. Cite policy, as I am tired of 'we already did this' and 'Ryulong and Lucia being consensus'. Those are not valid arguments and when you cite policy you do not explain why, especially the highlighted sections. I don't want to canvass or anything, but a WPP message about this discussion is probably proper and fitting at this point since the DRN is stale and going to be closed for inactivity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Stop using the fucking word "franchise". God damn it. You use it every single time you rehash your argument.
The policy I'm going to cite then is WP:MOS-AM, the current wording of which basically proscribes against splitting everything off into their own separate articles unless they are sufficiently different from the original concept. And in this case, the concept of this page is Kōkaku Kidōtai THE GHOST IN THE SHELL, Kōkaku Kidōtai 2 MANMACHINE INTERFACE, and Kōkaku Kidōtai 1.5 HUMANERROR PROCESSOR. Valid articles on adaptations split off from this one include Ghost in the Shell (film), Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, Ghost in the Shell (video game), Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PS2), Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PSP), and Ghost in the Shell: Arise. And the reason it is important that the original work dominate this page because it is the original work. It should not be shunted off to another article and just be treated as another branch or offshoot of this page when this page should be mainly focused on it. Any discussion of the adaptations should be minimalized, at best, because this page is small enough that WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT aren't issues, despite your constant assumption that they are.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, why do you list all Gits media? Its like your trying to convince new editors without clarifying or trick them into seeing something that's not there. The naming of them means nothing. Three articles have the same "Ghost in the Shell" name (which of course two of them have disambiguation) and considering the manga would dictate to cover its spin offs, then the lesser film and video game wouldn't be an issue as they already be covered in the manga article. This is what the collection of articles will look like:

Ghost in the Shell's content:

  • manga, its Spin offs and alternate tellings directly related to the manga
    • Films (Ghost in the Shell, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence)
    • Novel spin offs/prequel and animanga, OSTs
    • Stand alone Complex (2nd Gig, Solid State Society)
    • PSP, PS2, episodes, novel, manga, OSTs
    • Arise
    • Future Arise spin off media. (Possibly video games and OSTs)

Splitting the manga will only make a near duplicate of the "Franchise article" only it will not cover the adaptations based on the alternate tellings. So eventually it will be merged back. There's no way we can split the "manga" without bringing its alternate tellings. The alternate tellings are still widely connected to the original storyline. Ghost in the Shell film, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, and Ghost in the Shell SAC series all take plot elements from the original 3 mangas.Lucia Black (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was asked to comment, and I agree with DragonZero. I like the idea of a concise franchise page that can give an overview of everything. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Where the hell did DragonZero comment?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
If this was any other series, it would be fine. But like I mentioned, splitting manga apart will only cause a duplicate of the franchise. It would be great if you provided a counter point.Lucia Black (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll take part of the matter to DRN, but as you pointed out there, the mangas do not comprise a single narrative. The original manga and its sequel (the other comprising 1.5) are distinct entities and are not typical in manga productions. Nothing about Ghost in the Shell is 'normal'. It is a collaborative series of works that represent different facets and events that are only connected by the character and theme. The plots are unrelated or contradictory. SAC is not adapted from the manga, it is a alternate univerise and non-canonical (reference to Shirow's original) body of works. We do not even contain mentions to a third of the franchises' titles and I am not counting artbooks and other unofficial publications. Ghost in the Shell is not a typical manga to anime adaption, it is the equivalent of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek (film). And yes, Star Trek is a top-level topic (a better word for franchise?) for all things Star Trek related. Sometimes you need page dedicated to a complex and large body of works, and like Pokemon (anime and manga and games), the original media should be first mentioned, but is not one to dominate the main incoming page. To detractors Fullmetal Alchemist does not meet this requirement and functions perfectly as its own article, primarily about the whole universe, splitting off as necessary and with appropriate weight. This is not a franchise crusade, its about proper balance and scope within a large collection of works, which is best served by a broad overview of the topic Ghost in the Shell. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop making this out to be more than it really is, Chris. Ghost in the Shell was a manga created by Masamune Shirow that has had a bunch of animated adaptations. As such (and as per WP:MOS-AM), the article should be about the manga first and then have branches off into whatever adaptations came after it, with separate articles dedicated to extreme variations on the original (allowing SAC and ARISE to have their own pages). The comparisons to Star Trek and Pokemon (both media juggernauts) are apples to oranges.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong, please read MOS-AM, "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed." Its the introduction about the original format, the introduction is the lede and at best, the source inspiration. There is nothing at all about the entirety of the article or the majority being about the original. You are reading too much into this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what that has to do with not having this article be about the original manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

These "collaborations" aren't bunched up together. Example, the original manga series were developed and drawn by Masamune Shirow, the films he was not apart of at all. Oshii made drastic changes on his accord and again in Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence. Stand Alone Complex was dirrected by Kenji Kamiyama, yes Masamune Shirow provided some story ideas, and Oshii gave only one basic idea for the concept of S.A.C. 2nd Gig. Regardless Kenji Kamiyama is the head of the project and is considered his work. Arise again, a whole new cast developing this series. All of these alternate tellings are based on the original first Ghost in the Shell manga even if they don't have the exact same plot. So splitting from the manga, would only create a strikingly similar, more organized article of the franchise because its still holds based on the original story "enough" to mention.

Yes, the manga production is very untypical, but that's not a sign of a huge collaboration to create a franchise. Masamune Shirow isn't exactly a mainstream manga artist. He even has (or had) his own publication site for Intron Depot.

Also unwiki like to try to determine what's canon and not. Each series is canon in its own right. Let's not forget the alternate series are justg a handfull. Sure the media list is long, but ghost in the shell series is evenly divided by alternate series.

If this isn't about "franchise" crusade and more about a well balanced article, you would have no issue about this being about the original manga mainly because the manga is still directly related to the other alternate tellings and will cover it. However their adaptations aren't and don't really merit strong articles. Just imagining all media together gives me a headache.Lucia Black (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, will you stop complaining while proving my point. Few works are adaptations, because the plot and characters are unique and unrelated to the original manga. The 1995 movie and Innocence are heavily adapted works, SAC is for all intents and purposes a derivative work. Its not an 'alternate telling' because the Puppetmaster case never even occurred and that came from I.G about it being an alternate universe. As for canon, its not speculation, even the Anime Encyclopedia states it, "many other "facts" revealed in the TV series, contradicts earlier information stated or implied in earlier versions of the franchise. Fans are thus at a loss as to how much of the TV continuity is "canon"." And as for collaboration? "It uses Shirow's work as a foundation, but is a collaboration among a team of writers led by director Kenji Kamiyama." Its simple, a reliable source even points to the canon and collaboration issue with the franchise. Its not 'unwiki', to state what reliable sources say and those reliable resources point to significant issues with the creation and canon of the collaborative works. The original media is a foundation, not adapted and its a stretch to say 'based on' when half the characters in it where not even minor characters or had dialogue. Care to argue more about it take it to my talk page, you stated yourself the distinct 'Stand Alone' matters previously. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
All this fighting aside, Chris, you have yet to concisely explain why this page should not be about the original work of fiction and why it is necessary to split this page in half, again and get an article that doesn't explain anything other than the various things ith "Ghost in the Shell" in the title and why another article (list pages are different) must be dedicated just to the three books that came out. Everything just goes back to your "franchise page" demand. I would have thought that the way everything is set up now would have been a good enough compromise, as there are still two articles, but it just seems that don't want anything regarding the manga othe than a link on this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


To further this compromise, I have swapped the publication summaries, as per WP:SS the main article does not need such an extensive listing of the different ways the books were sold (particularly internationally) when it fits much better on the list of chapters. I had set it up this way prior, but Lucia Black reverted it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I did explain numerous times, see the DRN for a detailed post on my stance. Detail it there if you must, but this merge is unnecessary and contrary to policy. This original media focus is not in MOS-AM either. Reply to the DRN, because I think it is more productive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not contrary to any policy. You just keep going "I WANT A FRANCHISE PAGE".—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
DR is ongoing. Stop editing Ryulong. You made me stop, so you will stop to. No changes and no attempts to make the page look better from what we originally began arguing about. That version should STILL be up if you wanted to be serious about it, but I'll draw the line with the current version. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing binding about a dispute resolution ongoing that prevents me from fixing up this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I reject that assessment. I'd prefer to revert back to the beginning of this dispute as that was the stable version, but you did not want me to edit and you will not be exempt from it. WP:BRD. Do not continue it. You are altering the page from the issue raised at DRN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
DRN is fucking useless when we have no one attempting to fix anything. It's just another venue for the three of us to argue.
I am therefore proposing that the following changes be instituted into the article as I had been working on for the past day and a half now.
  • Refactoring the "setting" section to be less about the different versions of Ghost in the Shell and more about the manga
  • Moving the extensive information about the manga's publication dates and formats to the list of chapters and moving the summary from the list of chapters page to this article
  • Cutting down on the excessive plot summar
  • Adding the "censorship" section Chris added to the list page when he moved it back to his preferred manga title
  • Cutting out some of the unnecessary summarization of the plots of the films, television series, video games, and their related media
  • Adding a footnote to explain the existence of Niihama, Ehime, rather than shoehorning it into the prose.
As this article's scope currently is the manga I believe these would be beneficial.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No cuts to content would be needed if we just made the majority of this content about the manga page and use your cut down sections for THIS page. I'd agree to that, because I want 400 words per original work, leaning to 1000 with 1.5 (as it is smaller). Could you possibly summarize all the key points of the GITS manga in 400 words each? With the 5 W's, who, what, where, why, when? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This is for the community as a whole and not for you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Just reply on my talk page for now. Please ryulong, we are scattering this too much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
So just answer me on your damn talk page.Ryulong (琉竜) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)