# Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Niwi3 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. However, I see a number of serious issues that need to be addressed before the article passes a GA review.

Lead
"is a cyberpunk video game developed by Exact for the PlayStation" - Use video game genres instead of visual/narrative genres.
 Done by someone else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The lead does not summarize adequately the body of the article since it does not contain information about the gameplay and development.
The phrase "The game had received mainly positive reviews for its graphics, animation, and music, including its unusual wall-climbing mechanics with some negative targeting its tedious gameplay and low difficulty" needs some copyediting to make sense.
 Done Just added today by Niemti. That is not my fault.[1] Though easily fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Gameplay
The general reader does not know what a "think tank" is.
 Done
The section is incomplete: What is the game? an RPG? a shooter? an action adventure? How does the player progress in the game? By completing levels? objectives? Are there any bosses? Does the Fuchikoma have health? What is the difference between using Machine-guns vs Bombs? Overall, this section leaves more questions than answers.
 Done

Plot
Who is Aramaki? Motoko? Batou? Sawamura? An article must not assume that the reader is intimately familiar with its topic.
I don't know how much is really necessary for this; you do not interact or control them - they have no backstory and play no significant role. You are asking the equivalent of a backstory on Yoshi for Super Mario World; I can do this if you want though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Cast
I personally think this section is unnecessary, mainly because some voice actors are unknown.
The names are all in the credits, but they are not specifically drawn to the cast members by names in the credits. There is no harm in having it as it is another aspect of the game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Development and Release
I would suggest merging both sections into one two-paragraph section called "Development and release".
 Done Already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Who developed this game? The content of the lead and infobox should appear in the body of the article.
T*HQ -> THQ
 Done From the article, "Though always formally called THQ, the company typically traded as T*HQ in video games' box arts and instruction manuals." Though it has been fixed already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Production I.G. -> Production I.G
 Done The first usage is linked. Per WP:OVERLINK every usage should not be linked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"The North American release date was on October 31, 1997. The European release date was on July 1, 1998." -> The game was released in North America on October 31, 1997 and in Europe on July 1, 1998.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Related media
This section should come after the reception section.
Reception
I would suggest adding Template:Video game reviews to better organize this section.
I sorta disagree about this; wouldn't it just be a template for the sake of adding a template? Lucia, any thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Convert the section to two paragraphs close to the same length (one for audio/graphics and the other for gameplay).
I remember i added a gamefan review in here. was it by any chance removed? If so, i'll look in the history but i'm pretty sure i added it in.Lucia Black (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you please grab it? ^-^ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
References
Inconsistent date formats ("3 September 2013" in ref 11, "May 23, 2003" in ref 23, "2013-07-06" in ref 28, etc).
ref 21 is a dead link.
ref 11 and 21 are the same.
ref 28 lacks author and date.
 Done Referencing date formats are not a GA issue, but I can fix them quick enough. Also... Ref 21 is not dead. 11 and 21 are not the same and I don't see which one it is. Could you tell me besides mere numbers, they seem to have been swapped about. The GameSpot one, #18 did go 404, but I provided the archive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ref 11 and 16 (gamespot review) are the same.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In conclusion, there are enough significant issues in the article in that merely placing on hold is not going to do any good, so I am going to fail this GA nomination soon. Please, feel free to re-nominate once the issues have been addressed. You may also wish to request a peer review before you re-nominate so that everything is good to go. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to discussion on Niwi3's talk page, he replied on mine, but doesn't seem to want to discuss it now that he's set on it being failed. I just got home and took care many of the issues already. After waiting so long, it just seems a waste to have this failed over a bunch of already fixed issues that took less than half and hour to correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for waiting so long to respond; it was 2 A.M. when I posted my last comment. In any case, there are still issues that need to be addressed: the gameplay section needs to be expanded and therefore referenced. After that, you are welcome to re-nominate the article. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add this phrase to the intro, LB did. Yes, there are bosses, and a health bar (and a bar for machine gun heating, if I remember correctly). --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! It's fixed and I've put it up for GAR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to add some comments on some issues I have noticed just in the Intro part of the article:

1) "...video game developed by Exact and Production I.G for the PlayStation." 
--Production I.G is listed as a developer in the opening paragraph, but is absent from the right side overview box under Developer.
2) "It was localized by THQ and released in North America on October 31, 1997 and in Europe on July 1, 1998." 
--This sentence leads you to believe that both the NA and European version were published by THQ, but the right side overview box has SCEE listed as providing publishing for the European version of the game. This is inconsistent.
3) "Ghost in the Shell's plot revolves around a new recruit of Public Security Section 9 and investigate and combat the Human Liberation Front." 
--This gramatically does not make much sense.

As you can see, I think there are just minor issues overall with grammer, inconsistent information, and flow (the second paragraph in the Gameplay section is very choppy, for example). Just adding some insight if you want to work on getting this article closer towards GA status :) All the best --Mordecairule 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs)  
I've fixed the issues you brought up, thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to comment the first paragraph of the Development section. It says that the fuchikoma concept is derived from the tank appearing in the movie from 1995. However, fuchikomas with the same design as in the game appeared in the mangas some years earlier. And from a quick lookup regarding the stated designers, Shōji Kawamori and Atsushi Takeuchi, it appears that they indeed were involved but their contribution is not clear to me. However, i have no knowledge about the contents of the referenced article. CubanPedatro (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I will take up this article. I'll get to it as soon as possible, but it may be a couple of days. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, here we go.
Lead:

Nothing wrong here. Demonstrates all the salient points.
Gameplay:

Writing concise and well-phrased. Ably demonstrates salient points. All references work good, though I might update the url for ref 5. And possibly archive ref 4.
Plot: A few minor issues concerning grammar and manual of style.

"Section 9 were able to trace their communication and located their location at the Bay area however was a trap." Maybe "Section 9 are able to trace their communication and locate their location at the Bay area, however is a trap." would be better.
"However is a trap" still isn't right. I'd suggest changing it to "Section 9 are able to trace their communication and locate their location at the Bay area; however, it is a trap." Tezero (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
"Batou and Togusa encounter obstacles that disable them from moving forward, leaving the Rookie to be the only available member." I think "Batou and Togusa encounter obstacles that prevent them from moving forward, leaving the Rookie as the only available member."
"After the ordeal, it was revealed that Sawamura planned". Possibly "is" rather than "was" in that part of the sentence.
"however Zebra 27 intervene and wanted to take over the nuclear reactor to extort money from Sawamura.". Perhaps change to "however Zebra 27 intervened and wanted to take over the nuclear reactor to extort money from Sawamura.".
"Kusanagi declares the entire ordeal a training mission for the Rookie, but criticized his over dependency of the Fuchikoma." Maybe change to "Kusanagi declares the entire ordeal a training mission for the Rookie, but criticizes his over-dependency on the Fuchikoma."
Developemnt:

Clear read and sound-looking references.
Release and promotion:

You might want to archive refs 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, but that's entirely optional as all are operational.
Reception:

Ref 31 is the same as ref 5 4. This needs dealing with.
That's all I can find here. All relatively minor. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I made most of the necessary changes, only one sentences I that Tezero didn't agree with was difficult to figure out. The rest i don't think will affect Ga status such as archiving but i have been worried about it and will ask someone with more knowledge on how to archive or if someone can do it for me. Lucia Black (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also i'm not sure what you mean by ref 31 nd ref 5 being the same, i just checked and they don't appear the same, i even clicked both links. Lucia Black (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I meant ref 4. Has been corrected. And you can archive urls here. Just copy and paste the url, hit "browse history" and either select the latest archived version that shows what you want or, if it hasn't been done yet, archive it. The site doesn't show any signs of going down in a hurry. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Like i said, i dont know how to archive myself, i know how to search through archives already placed. Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I can do it if you like, unless that would invalidate my ability to review this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For now i don't think its necessary to pass or fail the article. I think we covered most of them. i personally dont think it would be harmful i've seen other editors intervene with certain minor issues. Anchiving these pages would help preserve the GA though if it passes. Lucia Black (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sorting out the archiving. Give me a little time to go over it again, and I'll get back with a final verdict. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Second Pass: Nothing wrong that I can see. All issues sorted. Yep. I think a pass for this article. Good work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games has an A-class, that could have been the next step. Anyway, the peer review nominator asked for the FA-class. These are the criteria.


### Compliance
Feel free to overwrite this status to reflect the discussion.

 
  
   well-written: 
   comprehensive: 
   well-researched: 
   neutral: 
   stable: 
  
 
 
  
   a lead: 
   appropriate structure: 
   consistent citations: 
  
 
 Media: 
 Length: 


### Discussion
As stated in the peer review, I will work in this article, although I will take my time. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, may ChrisGualtieri provide the page number as requested? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do not waste my time with nonsense when I am citing HighBeam with a direct link for something. I don't know or have to give any page it was on in some physical paper because I am not citing some physical copy. You should know better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The table of contents is a bit short but acceptable; that can be improved later with more material. The structure is appropriate for the current state. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I should point that MOS:HEADINGS says: "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well". May ChrisGualtieri explain why WP:AND does not apply? May the user indicate what material is considered "legacy" in "Reception and legacy"? May the user propose a better term than "marketing" to encompass "release" and "promotion"? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess its best to probably put it to "Reception" only and drop the legacy aspect. The other may be better split into sections instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, release dates are tightly integrated in "Release and promotion" and the section is too short for a split. If ChrisGualtieri feels that "Marketing" does not represent both terms, then the title should be left as "Release and promotion". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I don't think WP:AND applies to section headings, but to article titles that combine two different topics. Note that the guideline says "generally apply", not entirely apply. On top of that [WP:AND]] doesn't actually ban the use of "and" form article titles, just suggest finding a more general term if available. If no reasonable overarching title is available, then "and" is acceptable. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Citations look consistent enough. Perhaps some quotes from "Reception" would be better placed in the references. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Lead section is fine. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
From my limited knowledge and seeing the terms ролик/cutscene, меню/menu, анимация/animation and механич/mechanically, it looks like the edits [2] and [3] are supported by the Russian source. Unfortunately, the editor does not advertise to be a Russian speaker; perhaps one of them could confirm this content. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a problem in the paragraph about the making-of video: it is almost without substance. The video looks like having much more interesting information about development; unfortunately, my Japanese skills are close to none. Perhaps an intermediate level user such as Tezero could help; he is the only one I have found in the WikiProjects so far. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I could give it a shot if I had the video. Tezero (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero may try the code bwC7vpk3_rY. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Uh... what do I do with that code? It's not a URL or anything. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not found any evidence that the vinyl records were actually released, although they were planned. Thus, I am in favor of including the plans in the article body and dropping the track listing.
On another subject, since there is no deadline for this preparation, I will be handling an open GAN until the nominator returns. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"стреляя, стреляя, стреляя." A lot of shooting, but I am unable to get anything else out of the Russian source. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that 84.127.80.114 is having a lot of trouble understanding the Russian. Perhaps the translation offered here would be helpful in these efforts. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
With the last edits and discussions, I believe that the "well-researched" criterion is as prepared as possible. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The article looks neutral. 62.43.77.195 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As long as the Chinese sources do not contain neglected facts, or sources about the French and German dubbings exist, the article is comprehensive. 62.43.77.195 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


### Fair use images
I disagree with the WP:NFCC#1 compliance of the images in this article; it is not clear that no free equivalent could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The fair use rationale is based on the assumption that copyrighted artwork is not replaceable.
Is the cover art replaceable? The HG101 review shows three different covers, so this specific image is replaceable. The others may be copyrighted too, but what is the encyclopedic purpose? Identification and commentary? I only see a cartoon girl and a red artifact. Does new official artwork mean a different game? How are the copyrighted alternatives different from fan art?
Is the screenshot replaceable? Certainly, the review shows many examples. What is the encyclopedic purpose? To illustrate the game mechanics and graphics. There are games with free equivalents, SimCity vs. Micropolis; with free alternatives, Tetris Attack vs. Blocks of the Undead; and without free clones, such as Ghost in the Shell, since I cannot remember this kind of 90° rotation in a free game. However, the problem is similar, how is a free 3D rendering illustrating the same mechanics any different?
It may not be easy, but it is feasible to replace these images. Do these replacements compromise verifiability? Not at all, as shown in Debian; the technique is to use a free image illustrating the point and a citation to the non-free source. If we use our own words to express copyrighted text, why should not we use our own images to express copyrighted artwork? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely misinterpreting WP:NFCC#1. It is not that the image is replaceable by another non-free image, but it is not replaceable by a free equivalent. The fact that there are other non-free images does not mean that there is a free equivalent...somewhere. Also, we don't replace cover images with fan art, which are also under copyright as a derived works, thus non-free. The screen shots cannot be replaced for similar reasons. If they don't come from the game, they are not an illustration of game's visuals and gameplay. You can't compare this game with SimCity because this game was never released under a free-use or compatible license. And your Tetris Attack example is a red herring. No where are images of Blocks of the Undead used to replace images in Tetris Attack. —Farix (t | c) 13:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
TheFarix is correct, you misunderstand NFCC here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Replaceability was my only objection. So, do TheFarix and ChrisGualtieri think the "Media" criterion is met? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I doubt a 3rd image would add anything useful, but perhaps an appropriate image for the staff - you will not find any image of Shirow that we can possibly use. He does not allow photos to be taken and will not appear in video interviews. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-free staff photographs do not add value. I would use this Fuchikoma and reinforce content such as "the Fuchikoma were voiced by Katsue Miwa". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That image does not support anything in the statement you quoted. And there is no indication that the sculpted model (or toy) has any direct connection to the video game. —Farix (t | c) 15:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, its not even "on model" - whereas it is at least feasible to get photos of the director. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
An image from the "Making of game" video would be illustrative, as ChrisGualtieri may remember, but it is non-free too. If no more images can be added, the article cannot be improved regarding the "Media" criterion. Do the editors think this criterion is met? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there really anything else in the article that needs an illustration? Seems you are searching for an image just to have a third image in the article. —Farix (t | c) 16:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 Since the game is controlling a Fuchikoma, this article would be significantly enhanced with an image of a Fuchikoma or something that resembles one. This means using the image I mentioned, or better but free; a free image is suited to WP:TFA. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
That image has nothing to do with the video game, thus shouldn't be in the article. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
For the record, this image was used by Sony Music Entertainment Japan. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The article has not improved regarding this criterion, so my initial assessment remains: neutral. The current image set might be an issue at the FAC process; it might not be. The discussion above and other edits show that the "Media" criterion has been reasonably prepared. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


### Easter egg
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and Wikipedia has a well-known tradition. The purpose of this edit is to present our very best joke to the reader: "clever puns rather than poop jokes". I have set up an example based on a quote from a cutscene that will show up on the special day. To preview it, the date "04-01" must be changed to the current month-day and "Show preview", then "Cancel" (do not "Save page"). I would like to ask editors to think about the best joke for this article.
The rules are currently against jokes in the article namespace; however, there is consensus against a complete ban of jokes. The Main Page is a prominent example allowed, featured articles are a target, and I believe that a well-designed joke does improve an article. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No Easter eggs.  This is not Facebook or a game.  It is not allowed, period.  Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So, is this a firm rule? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. As WP:FOOLS states,  "All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace. Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism." Then two rows down, "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day."   There are no jokes in articles, period.  On April 1st, the Main page has "jokes", but true statements.  The linked articles do not contain any jokes whatsoever. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Therefore, WP:FOOLS prevents all jokes in article namespace, even those that would improve Wikipedia, right? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Would they? It could be disruptive; users might expect the actual article namespace as somewhat of a safe haven during this day of silliness. I certainly wouldn't want everything to be fooled up. Tezero (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I was planning only one joke: the best one. If consensus determines that this best joke would improve the article, then it should show up, at least to the readers that like to see this kind of content. If the joke does not improve the article, it should not show up. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at the sources for WP:FOOLS.  Consensus already has spoken.  Humor is also subjective.  It impossible for you use to use the "best joke".  I fail to see how you do not understand no jokes in article space.  Move on.   Bgwhite (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself is the joke here. We don't need any others. :^) Tezero (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that Bgwhite's edit answers my question. Therefore, if consensus determined that the best joke would improve the article, policy states to ignore the WP:FOOLS information page; the decision would follow policy in letter and spirit.
Because of the visible disagreement among editors, it is obvious that readers who like and dislike April Fools exist. If some kind of user preference about humor were implemented, it would be an improvement to have all this humorous content already available to the reader.
As suggested, let us move on. Should the joke be included in the article, without showing up on April 1, or should it be previewed on a talk page? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You still do not get it.  How many times do I have to say, All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace.  There are NO EXCEPTIONS!!  End of story.  Stop interpreting any of my words to say otherwise.  Again move on.  Bgwhite (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, you can leave it on the talk page as long as you like, but the article namespace is not for such things, not even on April Fool's. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, but it's the rules. Tezero (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
As it can be seen from the discussion above (and below), no valid arguments have been presented against this feature; furthermore, the presented arguments do strengthen my reasoning. Any interested group of editors that determines a joke to improve an article is legitimized to include it.
Indeed, it is feasible to implement a user preference about humor. See:

Reader's gender is unknown.
The previous sentence should display gender information about the reader.
Such a preference could be:

84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be against it, but this feature does not currently exist, so it's not appropriate to place jokes into mainspace at present. Take it up with the people who manage the April Fool's Day festivities here or something. Tezero (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You are very much bordering on disruptive behavior. You have already been told that such "jokes" or other humorous content in article space is considered vandalism. If you continue with this, you will eventually have your editing privileges revoked. —Farix (t | c) 11:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


#### Current best joke
This content will be displayed to readers that would enjoy a humorous encyclopedia. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


#### Proposed best joke
This section is reserved for a new proposal. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My vote's that the text be left exactly as is. Wikipedia being such a stick-in-the-mud on what should be such a silly day is the biggest joke there can be. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I remind Tezero that the joke will not be shown to readers that may not like it, but to those that want to see this kind of content. Please use this section to propose a better joke, if the editor wants to contribute. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Would this involve a user-preferences setting for humor? I don't think one exists. Tezero (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Reasoning in the parent section. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically WP:IGNORE can be used for anything, but it works (and is invoked) much less often than people think, kinda like the insanity defense. At any rate, you're calling for a consensus, but you're the only one who's been shown to support it here. I'm not against the idea of jokes in mainspace, but it's patently against the rules here and probably suited for a less humorless site, so I can't get behind it. Tezero (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's not vandalize the article for a "joke". There are already policies against such things. I don't know why you insisting on it. —Farix (t | c) 10:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


### Unnecessary reviews
In my humble opinion, the reviews from Edge, Electronic Gaming Monthly and Next Generation are not valuable to this article. They should be removed, unless the owners of the magazines show otherwise. Thibbs has access to Edge; JimmyBlackwing, to Electronic Gaming Monthly and Next Generation. If this is the Next Generation review, I still stand by this position. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@84.127.80.114: What do you mean by "unless the owners of the magazines show otherwise"? Are you asking for JimmyBlackwing and I to verify that the claims match the sources? Are you asking for us to present photographic evidence that they are accurate so that you can verify? Or are you asking for us to make the case as to why reviews from Edge, EGM, and Next Gen magazine are helpful to an article on the topic they cover? -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I will make a change to the article. If there is editorial disagreement, I would like to know why reviews from Edge, EGM, and Next Gen magazine are helpful to this article. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK I just looked at the article history and noticed this edit RE: EDGE, this edit RE: EGM, and this edit RE: Next Gen. So if I understand correctly, 84.127.80.114, you are asking for the page numbers for both the EGM and Next Gen sources, and you are concerned that the page number listed in the EDGE source does not contain a review of the subject, right? Or is there editorial disagreement? I'm a little confused by that. Anyway as far as the EDGE source is concerned I hope I can dispel your concerns. I just took out the magazine and looked it over again. On page 93 there is a 1-page review of the game. The page number appears on the page itself and the page clearly identifies itself as belonging to the October 1997 issue of EDGE. The title of the page appears in large right-justified letters at the top and reads "Ghost in the Shell" (emphasis as shown in in the original). This information was previously verified by Lucia Black and others involved in the February 12, 2014 Good article reassessment where I first uploaded a scan of the article. If you would like me to upload another copy for you to review, please let me know. -Thibbs (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I also looked over the rest of the refs to see if there were any other challenges issued by 84.127.80.114 and I saw this edit RE: Famitsu where verification was requested for the claim that "Famitsu liked the battles but complained about the Fuchikoma getting stuck if it hit a wall." I think I can help out here as well because I'm 99% sure the requested source fails verification. My guess is that there was a misreading of the line "壁に張りつくことができる戦車のフチコマを操り、つぎつぎと敵を倒していこう。" from the original source. In this case, "壁に張りつく" means affixed to the wall, not embedded in the wall. I haven't played the game so I don't know for sure, but in the anime (which I have watched) the Tachikoma from SAC and the Uchikoma from SSS can walk on walls like spiders. I'm pretty sure that this isn't a complaint by Famitsu, but rather an explanation of the abilities of the tanks. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK strike that. The correct line from the review is "ただし、移動中に壁にぶつかると、そのまま壁に張りついてしまうのは困りモノ。" and indeed that verifies the claim in the article. Despite reading it a few times and quoting it above I was somehow under the impression that the claim was that Fuchikomas were getting stuck in the wall. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I may as well cover all bases. In case, per 84.127.80.114, there is editorial disagreement I would just say that reviews from Edge, EGM, and Next Gen magazine are helpful to this article because they are reliable sources that serve to flesh out the critical reception of the game per Wikipedia:VG/MOS#Essential content. Otherwise there's nothing particularly important about them. I believe they were originally added to this article in response to Teancum's concern here that "the Reception section [of this version of the article] is very thin." If in the intervening months the rest of reception section has become sufficiently dense then I don't know of a specific reason to include them. In my opinion, additional sourcing never hurt anything, though. Given that they are reliable sources, I think there tends to be a presumption in favor of inclusion so the case would have to be made for their removal. Even if they were removed, I'd recommend adding them to a Further reading section for the benefit of readers rather than outright deleting them. -Thibbs (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Regarding the Japanese review, I will try a less literal translation. The Further reading section is a good compromise that will allow testing the "comprehensive" criterion. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Even after reading through most of this discussion, I can't understand why I was pinged. Nor can I tell whether or not 84.127.80.114 is serious, given his previous discussions ("Proposed best joke") above. If someone needs me to verify the EGM and Next Gen reviews, I'm happy to do so. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I concur, this IP editor may mean well, but I do not agree with their actions over a joke or over these reviews. The reviews are helpful, show notability and are verifiable reliable sources. Seems clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


#### Next Generation review
ChrisGualtieri has reverted the change about the Next Generation review. First, will ChrisGualtieri provide the requested information about the source? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What "requested information" do I need to provide you? I have no obligation and you seem to already have it and Thibbs does as well. I disagree that the review is "unneccessary" when it was an era when imports and such rarely made it across the seas. You get basically a sentence and a designation from a reputable publication whose comments are immediately verified by anyone who has ever played the game. Why "tedious" - strafe and shoot, strafe and shoot. Next boss? Strafe and shoot. Strafe and shoot. Next boss... Strafe and shoot. Strafe and shoot. Aside from five "types" of enemies worth mentioning all are dispatched by the exact same tactic as every other enemy can be. It is monotonous, but also short. Do you find something wrong with the review? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
If the review is indeed the image I linked previously, I have something to say and I will in due time. ChrisGualtieri has no obligation to edit this article, as Wikipedia is not compulsory. However, he has reverted my edit and claimed that the source is verifiable. Thus, he should either back that claim up, revert himself or refrain from reverting the change. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please stop trolling, your attempt to insert a joke and your wiki-lawyering over a printed source is a waste of time. For months you've been floating around this page with questionable motives. Other editors have formed a consensus on this matter and I agree with them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Since my concerns are not addressed, I should restore the edit. Has ChrisGualtieri the intention of reverting my change again without providing the requested information? 84.127.82.127 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What exactly are your concerns? What information do you lack? You have located a copy of the source and linked it above. The source is verifiable, reliable, and topical and although there is no specific reason to include it you have not yet provided any specific reason to exclude it. Print sources are acceptable at Wikipedia even if they are hard or costly to access. Why are you intent on removing this reliable material? Are you concerned that 42 sources may be too many for a featured article? Compare it to today's FA which stands at 112 sources and 14 Further Reading books. There may be a legitimate reason to exclude this reliable source but you will have to explain it clearly or it is likely to fail to achieve consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
First, the page number of this review is necessary. May Thibbs provide such information? 84.127.82.127 (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Cut the snobby and snarky second person retorts. If 84 is going to continue trolling or acting in a WP:NOTHERE fashion then it should be time to part ways. 84 is wikilawyering and trying to remove a source for invalid reasons. The page in question did not have the page number listed on it anyways. It is clear that the page number is not required. rChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I can see snarky, but snobby? You're reading too far into it ChrisGualtieri, but ok: if my use of the third person bothered 84.127.82.127 then I apologize. Anyway I get the further point - article talk pages are not the place to be holding massive discussions of basic policy/guidelines that the majority of editors are already familiar with. I'm not big on holding long talk page discussions with users of dynamic IP addresses, but I extend an open invitation for 84.127.82.127 (the person, not just the IP address) to contact me at my talk page if I can be of any help answering these kinds of in-depth questions on the basic rules in the future. In the meanwhile I suggest we collapse part of the above discussion. Also, for the record, I don't think the IP editor is trolling or acting in a WP:NOTHERE fashion, though I do see clear evidence of WP:IDHT problems and possibly borderline WP:OWN behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing is back. May the user provide the page number, since others are unable to do it? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So, another proof of the value of Thibbs' word. I thought the user said "revert if unhelpful". Page please? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
84.127.115.190 did not revert. 84.127.115.190 "Changed collapse." If the section should be uncollapsed then the collapse summary should be removed. Feel free to try again, but there should be a good reason to uncollapse. I don't see any reason to do so myself. Perhaps 84.127.115.190 could provide a rationale. -Thibbs (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
My edit allowed Thibbs to collapse the discussion if so wanted. The collapsed information is meant for JimmyBlackwing; I feel free to try again, thanks. Page please? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing has nothing to do with this article. I don't see him commenting on this talk page or making edits to the article. If you want to direct comments towards him, I advice you go to his talk page. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, JimmyBlackwing said to be happy to review the Next Generation source. The editor complained about not understanding the ping reason, so the collapse by TheFarix is unlikely to help. Going to the user talk page was my next step.
However, TheFarix has said: "JimmyBlackwing has nothing to do with this article." Indeed, that is my position; finally some support. May TheFarix confirm that the Electronic Gaming Monthly and Next Generation reviews are not valuable to this article? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Quit putting words in my mouth. All I said that JimmyBlackwing has not commented on this talk page nor edited this article. So why are you directing comments to him? If you want him to help out with a particular issue, go to his talk page and explain it there. Also, because he has not commented on this talk page nor edited the article does not mean that the sources are invalid. —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would stop pinging me, 84.127.115.190. I saw it the first two times. I will have access to my magazines later today, and I'll get the page numbers then. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Next Gen: page 193. EGM: page 115. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I would appreciate to have as many details as possible about these sources for the FAC process, just in case, although my concerns are mostly addressed.
Regarding Next Generation, could JimmyBlackwing verify that the last line of the second column and the third column say:
 "the game begins to feel tedious after a while. Perhaps more vehicles or the ability to change from first to third person would've helped curb the monotony.... Ghost in the Shell is a fast and fun game"
please? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The review is publically available. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


### Link to Velikij Drakon source
Regarding this edit, may Thibbs explain why linking to a Velikij Drakon copy hosted at a Velikij Drakon website is considered a copyright violation? 84.127.82.127 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that copyright is still in effect and the "project" was restarted by a group of people none of whom are the copyright holders and collected the issues from people over at tv-games.ru? LINKVIO seems appropriate until you can provide evidence against that. I see absolutely nothing that makes the site a legitimate host - owing to pirated content and other questionable links found throughout the site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The people from tv-games.ru made the electronic copies. So? "Copyright © 2004-2014 www.gdragon.ru" and owning the domain from 2006 looks correct. May ChrisGualtieri point me to the discussion that decided that this new site is offering pirated content? 84.127.82.127 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It is unusual to say the least for a publisher to donate all of its intellectual property in a defunct magazine to fans rather than retaining them itself. It is even more unusual for a copyright owner like www.gdragon.ru (Great Dragon's Dale - Dолина Великого Dракона) to get a third party website like tv-games.ru to make scans for it and then to permit them to offer the scans on their own download page with their own conflicting copyright claims: "© 2003 - 2014 www.tv-games.ru". And it is surprising that gdragon.ru would fail to give appropriate credit in their history page for the original gift... Generally speaking "free" downloads of traditionally copyrighted material (published books or magazines, music, games, etc.) should only be linked-to with caution. Considering the evidence I doubt the copyright disclaimer at www.gdragon.ru has any force over the magazine scans. There has been no discussion of whether these scans violate copyright, but if 84.127.82.127 is interested in starting one, the place to do so is WP:RSN. We should leave the refs delinked for now due to the copyright issues. If consensus at RSN is that the links are fine then they can be restored. -Thibbs (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The alleged copyright violation will be addressed in due time. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No - you either do it now or not at all. You were wrong, own up and admit you made an error instead of dodging the question so as to made the issue "unresolved". The copyright notice is invalid and both Thibbs and I made a clear argument because the publisher and site operators are not the copyright holders. The official site is being operated by those who did not found the work and currently violate the Berne Convention. It cannot be linked to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could explain why Velikij Drakon has working links for website, the official website of the magazine. Nevertheless, this link is not required. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are allowed to include information that is not required. If you have further questions about that topic, I'd ask at Talk:Velikij Drakon. -Thibbs (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 The current site is little more than a resurrected memorial to what once was. Because it was not released by the copyright owner, the ability to use the site for a direct source causes issue, but it still exists. There is a difference here between the public scan of the relevant data and the complete unauthorized copy of the whole that goes far beyond the "fair use" aspect we can get away with on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was about inclusion of the defunct website in the Infobox Magazine template at Velikij Drakon. It is appropriate to include this information even if it is not strictly required and even if the former website is now run by a fan group. Further discussion of that should take place at Talk:Velikij Drakon. Regarding the use of the source in this article, I agree with ChrisGualtieri. It is inappropriate to link the ref to an illegal copyright-infringing copy of the magazine and it is completely acceptable to leave the ref unlinked. There is no requirement to link references. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@84.127.115.190: Per this comment ("The article is as well-researched as possible.)"), I wanted to mention that I have access to coverage of the game in Chinese hardcopy sources as well. If you are interested I can try to provide some scans for you. It might help us to provide more non-English coverage of the game. -Thibbs (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the invalid citation neededs, fixed a few things out of relevancy and added a citation to the Laser Disc. I know its published in 1998, but I don't care about a street date. Side A was just the interviews and VHS content and the back was the in-game cutscenes. It was even labeled "all of digital animation" to highlight this fact. Side B contains the animation without the voicework and such, it is a good archive of the work done as a result. The missing page citations are filled in, so I decided to fix the other issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there are more than six threads and the article is being prepared to be featured, automatic archiving should be enabled. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The information from the controversial Velikij Drakon source about the fuchikoma design cannot possibly be correct. They were not inspired by the spider think tank from the film, they appear in the original manga from 1989.153.156.238.89 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the source was referring to the movement aspects of fuchikomas. In the manga they would have been static images whereas the think tank in the film was moving. Perhaps the movement of the fuchikomas in the game was inspired by the think tank while their image model was based on the fuchikomas the manga. The best would be if we could find another source that touched on this issue directly. -Thibbs (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Definitely agree on both. The Fuchikomas feature prominently in the Manga. So does the tank actually. It should be corrected nonetheless, since the source has also been subject to controversial discussion.91.19.236.23 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The source in question is generally acknowledged in Wikipedia as a reliable source. The most recent edit leaves the entire claim without any source. Reliable sources should only be removed through the use of contrary or superior sources, not just on the observation of random editors. I think the best way forward is to locate a superior source that can be used to replace this one. -Thibbs (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The source may be 'generally acknowledged... as reliable' but in this particular instance it is obviously incorrect. Note that these these aren't just 'observations from random editors', these are references to the source material which predates the game by over a decade. Since the claims made in/about the Velikij Drakon article are false, then they should be removed entirely until and unless they can be corrected with regards to the possibility they're referencing aspects of the fuchikoma's movement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.218.159 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You not only have yet to provide a reliable source for your claim that the developers were inspired by the the manga and not the film, you have not even given a reason for thinking that this is the case. Just repeatedly stating that the information in the article is incorrect is not an argument, much less a persuasive one. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we replace the North American cover with the Japanese cover? SkalgarXLR (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)