# Talk:.hack//G.U.

WTF? Source? >_>

Is there a release date for Europe confirmed?

Not yet.
The second anyone gets info, tell us. Thanks. user:EEVEE103  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.173.132 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 

Sure, Tri-Edge may look like a normal Twin Blade, but there has been no confirmation whatsoever as to his class. Atoli and Sakubo appear to be Wavemasters, but they clearly are not. Same goes for Endrance, who wields a sword and could be classified as a Blademaster yet in the The World of 2017 he is a "Blade." We don't even know if the Twin Blade class even exists in 2017. We don't even know if Tri-Edge is an actual player or an AI! Therefore, I am leaving his class as ??? for the time being. Soulsteelgray 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Kite and friends' classes are displayed as "???" in-game when they join.

Hey, think maybe we could get some pictures on this article?

I noticed that in the credits of the Project GU prototype video, the name Sadamoto Yoshiyuki is listed as art supervisor. But in later trailers, his name has vanished from credits section. There is quite a good deal of the disappearance of the anime look in characters despite their near (80-90%) resemblance between the proto and final characters. Any info regarding these?

If you read the Interim Reports on the End of the World disk that comes with the game, it mentions something about the first attempt to ressurect Aura after she left destroyed 80 percent of the world, and there was even a day when all the players logged on the last day of the world. The fire was only used as a coverup, but it actually did happen and did destroy the CC building.

Do you think any person who has played all three volumes can put a gameplay mechanics section, both basic and advanced, from all three games? Such examples include Lost Weapons, Bike Customization, Party Attacks, Root Towns, and most of all this marriage involving Haseo and several other characters. That point right there is the most puzzling.

I'd like to see this article cleaned up and talk more about the games themselves rather than act as a list of spoilers for the story. For this, I wish to make the following proposals:
- Create a seperate article for .Hack//GU characters. The list seems extensive enough to warrent its own article while expanding on minor characters. I suggest making a small list of essential characters (without spoilers) and link to the seperate character article that contains spoilers. This includes bosses.
- The revamp with a story synopsis section. Try to compress all the spoilers of the article into this one section.
- Expand on gameplay and features the game offers. For example, describe what the game's combat system is like, what the gameplay consists of, and mention the extra features such as the game's community boards and mini games. Also mention what new features are available in each game.
- Development section, if any information is available of the game's development cycle.
- Reception section of each game that gives a summary of what critics said about the games. Remember to be objective and only cite the opinions of those critics, not giving your own.
- Look at articles of other games and try to match their standards and quality.
one person doesn't have to do all this. It would be nice if someone just created the basic structure of all this and the rest follow through to add more details. 137.155.128.28 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could. At lest it looks a lot better than before. Kazu-kun 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is really necessary to include the major bosses in the game? It just seems like pointless spoiler information to me. 70.186.213.167 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, i dont really see a point in putting down bosses in the game, it doesin't have anything to offer information wise aside from spoilers. Zombongo 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things i'd like to discuss about the information about the artical.
1. i believe the importent bosses section does not hold any relevent information towards the artical. listing what the final bosses are in each of the games is well... just kinda stupid and full of spoilers.
2. the issue regarding what classes the Azure knights are is a bit of a strange subject. in game their job class are listed as "???" yet its painfully obvious what job class they really are. take Kite for example. he uses all the skills a Twin blade has, as well as the same weapons and armor a twin blade uses. it is my theory that their class information is listed as "???" because of their corrupted status and the fact that aura created them diffrently then a normal player would creat a PC, therefor making them unreconizable to "the worlds" system.
lastly, i believe the Characters section of the artical needs to be cleaned up. for starters Cubia isin't really a character and despite being the final boss of the series, actually playes a somewhat minor role in the story as he only appears at the very end of Volume 3 where as AIDA is the actual main cause of problems throughout most of the series. 
it also might be a good idea to split the Characters section into 'major' and 'minor' Characters. for example. Hiiragi, Sophora, Asta, IYOTEN Grein etc etc. play a very minor role in the whole series, take Asta and IYOTEN, they teach Haseo how to play when he first starts, then PKs him and their never heard from again untill sometime in volume 3 where even then they have a very minor role.
I hope you guys find these suggestions helpful  Zombongo 03:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we discuss how this series is worst than the others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.77.8 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 

Thats your opinion, adding it will only get reverted though. Zombongo 05:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing on Wikipedia at all that mentions Trilogy, the film based on the G.U. line of games.  This should probably be added.  67.212.63.252 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please update this article with developer/publisher information. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about turning this article into ".hack//G.U vol.1 Rebirth". the article is way too long to cover 3 games, and it would be much easier to cover just one.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With these edits (1 2) Axem Titanium (talk · contribs) removed a reference I had added earlier. I hope more users give me so little cause to complain when they remove references. That said I still think this reference may be of use so I am leaving it here.

Gifford, Kevin. ".hack//G.U. Volume 1: Rebirth". Newtype USA. 5 (11) p. 132. November 2006. ISSN 1541-4817.
Happy editing. – allen四names 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it seemed to only be a citation for the translation of the 1st game's name, which generally doesn't need a citation. If you own the magazine and it has information that might be valuable to the article, please share it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I am going to find out how the "Email this user" works so you may get the image I scanned in your email before you see my reply. – allen四names 19:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I approve.  In my opinion, references should always be in with the text for easy access.  When you put it at the bottom, you can't use section edit to change them without making two edits. Also no problem with the formatting change, that looked like a good move.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Before you go through the trouble of scanning the pages, what exactly is on it that might be useful? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have already scanned the review of the PlayStation 2 game by Kevin Gifford. All I need is an email address to send it to. – allen四names 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's all well and good, but is there anything worth noting in it? Does it provide any new insight not already covered by existing web sources? The same goes for the other Newtype magazine source. A scan of that would probably be more inherently useful since it covers the manga, which has less online info. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This should be simple. I send an email with the scans attached so you can read the articles to see what if anything you may wish to use. You seem to want a report before you will even consider reading them. I suggest you seek help at WT:Anime. – allen四names 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering. Replied. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "via" isn't a common-use word, so i replaced it "by ways of" since it's the closest thing there is, but other alterations were done. 
i also replaced the description of .hack//G.U. Trilogy due to it begin vague (numerous liberties with the story doesn't really give a solid image), with the it's release dates, but unfortunately it was removed and apparently false statements. as for .hack roots, .hack//G.U. acts as the main starting point with .hack roots as it's prequel, and it was also added in special features with the game.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Via" is a relatively common word and it's certainly more common than "by ways of" which is clunky and improper use. Roots came out before the GU games so it's not a prequel, GU is merely the sequel. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Via isn't a well  known word and it's usage has been limited in wikipedia unless there are articles that directly relate to it's original usage. "by ways of" or "by means of" could even just be shorten to just "by" or "through" which isn't clunky or disruptive to the flow.
i also though that everything that came out before would be the original while anything that came out afterward was the adaptation, but it's not. for 1, the release dates are too close. Here are 3 examples that make one the adaptation despite it being released first. Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga)-Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), Red Garden, and Romeo X Juliet. Another example within the .hack franchise is .hack//Sign released in April 4, 2002. .hack (video game series) first game released in June 20, 2002. the difference is only by months yet .hack//Sign is still considered a prequel.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
If this doesn't convince you there is also anime news network confirming them as prequels. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=605 for .hack//sign and http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2006-11-06/.hack-roots-premiere-on-cartoon-network for .hack//roots.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By definition, a prequel is a work that was released after another work but is set before it. The games were released after Roots, therefore it is by definition, not a prequel. The proximity of the release dates has nothing to do with it. It either came out before, or it came out after. ANN is using the term improperly in this case. In fact, a lot of people throw this term around casually (ex. Chamber of Secrets is the prequel to Prisoner of Azkaban) because it's easier to say than "takes places before" but it's not correct usage. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Either way, that's original research. Anime news network confirmed it was a prequel and i doubt they called it prequel for the same reason you think they did... this is very similar to the .hack//link situation. the manga was released before but itself confirms the adaptation. CyberConnect2 most likely confirmed it as a prequel. either we have verification now, so no use arguing. unless you want to argue whether anime news network is unreliable at this point. then if you do here are some more links [1], [2]. Prequel is now more or less used as when they make a series about the past (regardless of release) based on another work. basically, if it was based off of one, it's considered a prequel.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research, the source is a dictionary. The term prequel very specifically applies to works which are released after something else but take place before, which is explicitly not the case here. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
i went to dictionary.com, nothing about "release". here's what i got
-a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.
Either way we have verification now. SO no point arguing about it. It has to be changed to prequel. UNLESS you verify that .hack//G.U. is the sequel to .hack//Roots.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Prequel can mean the same one you mentioned, but it's not the only one and the other meanings aren't as direct. Th reason why it's most likely considered a prequel is because the 3 .hack//G.U. games were in production first. the idea of prequels and sequels is to compliment the original. but in this case it appears as roots is trying to compliment GUBread Ninja (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article on prequels: "The term prequel is sometimes used to describe any work with a sequel. This is contrary to the term's original meaning, which defines a prequel as a type of sequel, not the converse of a sequel. For example, The Phantom Menace (Episode I, 1999) is a prequel to Return of the Jedi (Episode VI, 1983), but not to Attack of the Clones (Episode II, 2002). In the latter case, the proper term would be 'predecessor.'" Also note that every single example that they list (all 5 million of them) has the prequel released AFTER the original. It says nothing about production. Roots takes place before GU, and was released before GU, therefore is a predecessor, not a prequel. End of discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Axem, you're not even trying to verify it. you're merely giving off definitions. If you want it to end here, you'll only be admitting original research which means it wont matter what you think because i already have verification. i said "verify" as in find a reference out there calling it a sequel. The way anime news network and other sites said don't exactly called it a prequel (in the loose term you mentioned). The definition says "work" doesn't necessarily mean release, so it really doesn't matter. I'm positive it's called a prequel for obvious reasons i already mentioned. and releases don't really matter. But just to keep us both at bay, why not we change it to .hack//sign and .hack//Roots being the "predecessor" of .hack and .hack//G.U. because not even sequel is the right word for them.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a sequel in the sense of the definition of a sequel. That a sequel is defined as such, we can extrapolate that it fits the definition. Calling something a sequel is a non-controversial act. It's clearly not a prequel, because prequels are meant to be, like I said on the project, "taking place before an earlier work." Why is predecessor unacceptable? Why should prequel be used to mean basically the exact same thing? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
it does take place of an earlier. the work was just released later. that's the point. if predecessor-prequel mean the same thing so aren't you being a bit controversial? like i've said before. the dates are far too close. this again is similar to the idea of adaptation like i've mentioned before.  it was probably released for more promotional reasons (similar to .hack//Link twilight Knights released before the game, yet the manga admits it's the adaptation). I wouldn't normally argue prequel-sequel idea, but considering .hack has always done this sort of thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"Predecessor" is fine, but it has a completely different meaning than "prequel", so you can't say that just because "predecessor" is ok, that "prequel" is ok too by extension. The most simple and direct way to say it is "sequel", which is what we must use to fulfill criterion 1a of WP:FA?, which emphasizes clarity and succinctness. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
you know, if you wanted predecessor, you didn't need to move this discussion towards WT:VG, my last comment before retro hippie, was that if we could do that instead of prequel. look at it. Anyways i doubt that will hurt the chances of getting featured article.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(kickback) No, I don't want predecessor, I want sequel. Brevity is wit. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
this is ridiculous....we're both settling for predecessor until further sources call G.U. a sequel.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
GU is prima facie a sequel. There's no disputing that. It's calling a spade a spade. It is a work that was released after another work and also takes place chronologically after the previous work: the exact, word for word definition of a sequel. Development times don't matter. For example, Matrix 2 and Matrix 3 were filmed at the same time and released quickly after one another, but does that mean that Matrix 2 was a prequel to Matrix 3? No, because that's not what a prequel is. It's much simpler to explain it as a sequel than to muck around with prequels and predecessors. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
that's a poor example and you know that. G>U. was first in development. i'm sure the creators called roots a prequel otherwise it wouldn't be called as such in dozens of sites. .hack//Roots isn't calling it self .hack//G.U. 1 and the trilogy games .hack//G.U. 2. we're calling it predessesor by consensus, sources call it a prequel NO SOURCE is calling G.U. a sequel to roots. end of discussion>Bread Ninja (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
and like i've said...it's not whether or not the definitions of prequel can fit into .hack//roots situation, it's whether you will let it ornot. like you've said this is more of a "want" then anything else.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - .hack//Roots did not really preceded this timeline wise as it was still in the midst of playing when it was released. Yes it came out before, but it was still within a close timeframe, close enough that most of the series hadn't even been seen. A predecessor is something that comes out before in its entirety, thus Star Wars Episode III precedes Episode IV because it was fully released. If a title is still coming out after another one, it cannot be said to precede it; rather it is a concurrent release.陣内Jinnai 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
that's what i more or less tried to explain.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for later. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

http://johakyu.net/lib/2007/07/2007-07-28-000582.php
http://www.famitsu.com/interview/article/1212162_1493.html
The Great Deception (一つの壮大なペテン)

@Tintor2 and Iftekharahmed96: Tintor2 has contested the page move of this series article to the name of the first game/episode. Please discuss the move and/or split effort before proceeding. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kvng: As info I've reverted the page moves and splits as Tintor2 contested it. Proper split discussion needed from Iftekharahmed96. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I would agree a split if each episode had enough content like Persona 2. However, .hack//G.U. doesn't have that and it should follow the examples of the GA .hack (video game series) and Digital Devil Saga. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
A better series where separating the episodes into separate articles would be the Xenosaga series, where there was significant gameplay differences and development for each. For .hack//G.U., the gameplay is essentially the same across all three titles, and there's very little that can be said about development unique to any one specific episode. These three games, while separate releases and will have different reception sections, do not need separate articles. (Consider this a much earlier version of current Telltale adventure games like The Walking Dead - each episode does get its own score, but we treat the series as one work overall). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I evaluated the article for .hack//G.U. and found that a lot of its information can be segregated into the specific volumes (such as story, review and soundtrack) hence the article split. However, if the majority of users in this discussion agree that it's preferable for all the .hack//G.U. games to be under one article (outside of .hack//G.U. Last Recode, as this will be a remaster/remake with enough new information to warrant the separate article) then that's no problem for me. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with that but first I suggest expanding the main article until we can split it in subarticles. I mean, just look at how small is the development section. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have an alternate consideration, should we make the .hack//G.U. page a series page as opposed to a video game page? .hack//G.U. has enough media and content to warrant it? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It already is, read the start: ".hack//G.U. is a series of single-player action role-playing games" :) -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? well that changes everything for me. I was under the assumption that it was just a video game article and not a series article due to the video game article template used. If I knew about this earlier, I wouldn't have split the article into the different games. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've rolled back the removal of the cover art. It was made with no discussion and no notes in the edit summary.  If you'd like to change the image to an icon instead, please discuss it here before making the edit.  Thanks.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the justification for adding the cover art over the icon? For starters, the cover art made me assume that it was a video game article as opposed to a series article (it didn't help with the layout of the infobox either). Alongside this, .hack//G.U. expands beyond the first PlayStation 2 game anyway hence the need to replace the cover. If you really like the layout of the .hack//G.U. cover, you can alyways edit the .hack//G.U. Last Recode article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
.hack games are a sort of in-between case, .hack//GU is not properly a series because the games were released around the same time in volumes; akin to several modern games like Life Is Strange that were released online in episodes.  The series article is the one that covers the franchise. Usually remasters of games get a section under the parent topic article, so Last Recode should be merged here unless it's length gets unmanageable.  I'm going to request comment from the WikiProject.
Regarding the icon, that GU logo does not identify the game as well as the actual cover which was used in its promotion. The logo you're using just seems to be cropped out of a screenshot or something; whereas the cover art is more recognizable and illustrates the topic better.  As this was the way the article was for about eight years, I'm going to revert back to the original.  You will need to build a consensus here before changing it back.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The cover art does not illustrate the topic better, matter of fact, it does an even worse job of illustrating the series because it can lead confusion to the casual reader into believing that it is a video game article. It doesn't matter if the PS2 cover "was the way for 8 years", formats and styles change over time. .hack//G.U. expands beyond the video games into anime and manga, so it stands to reason that the logo should be used. Alongside that, there's been instances in which a remaster and original games are separate articles, for example, The Last of Us and The Last of Us Remastered. .hack//G.U. Last Recode deserves to be a separate article as there will be enough citations to warrant the discussion about the changes applied to the remaster. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think you represented my arugment fairly.  When I stated it was this way for eight years, it was to highlight that you are making a change to the way it was.  I am disputing that change.  Under the normal process with wikipedia, instead of edit warring, you go to the talk page, get more people involved and build a consensus.  Until that happens, you cannot make that change.  Those are the rules.
As I said, this is NOT a video game series article.  It is an article about the game .hack//G.U. which was released in three volumes.  The fact that the recode can beconsidered a single title further illustrates this point. So it's perfectly acceptable to have the first of the three volumes' cover art as the illustration to the article.  You initially came to this article and tried to split each volume into a separate article, which was reverted; now you're borderline edit-warring over this image.  I'm not sure what you're goal is here.  Wait until this change has been discussed before re-implementing it or I will request page protection.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that you are incorrect, this is a video game series article. Here's an excerpt proving my point.
"Fair enough. I have an alternate consideration, should we make the .hack//G.U. page a series page as opposed to a video game page? .hack//G.U. has enough media and content to warrant it? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It already is, read the start: ".hack//G.U. is a series of single-player action role-playing games" :) -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)"
The fact that you are so insistent in keeping the cover is illogical. Do you even know why I wanted to split the article into each episode at the time? It's because I had the same false assumption as you that this was a video game article. Aside that, I was unaware that there were articles present with episodic video games. And Last Recode is an enhanced compilation compiled into a singular experience (with potentially new features). What is your end goal is keeping the cover over the video game title? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the first game's cover is fine, as this is more an episodic game than a "series" in the traditional franchise sense. That said, Iftekharahmed96 needs to remember WP:BRD. Boldly make a change, if reverted, discuss. There was no consensus established to remove the game cover, despite claims otherwise. With only two editors in the discussion, at odds with each other, the status quo is the consensus. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but fact of the matter is, .hack//G.U. expands beyond the video games, it also contains a dedicated manga series as shown on Google images. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=.hack//g.u.+manga&rlz=1C1CHZL_enGB683GB683&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRwfzB-PzUAhVaF8AKHQwNCTcQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=638, and a dedicated anime, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=9179, with this knowledge, the logo is more appropriate as not only does it establish that the article covers everything related to .hack//G.U., but it also prevents confusion towards the casual Wikipedia user about it being just an video game article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Some articles about subjects with the same name differentiate with a tag in the title like (video game).  However, I'd say that's not necessary considering the game is what is most commonly associated with this name and the manga seems to just be a retelling of the game's story.  The "related media" section has a link to the .hack media article as well. I realize that the .hack (video game series) article does this, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what has to happen here.  And with the first games, it really could've been confused with the whole .hack franchise; I don't think that's the case here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with acting boldly, the first time.  Sometimes that's what it takes to get the ball rolling on stagnant articles. It feels like this article could attain GA status like the first set of games, there probably are enough sources out there; kind of a shame that it's still C-rank. I'm playing through these games again, so it might be a good time to work on it while everything is fresh. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you still haven't justified the use of using the PlayStation 2 cover over the logo. Doesn't matter if the manga and anime are re-tellings, they're still alternate media of .hack//G.U. that expands beyond the video games. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I've decided to upload the promotional poster for .hack//G.U. Last Recode as the representative picture. That way, not only is it symbolic of the .hack// game collection/series, but it can also prevent confusion for Wikipedia readers whilst acknowledging that the game collection has dedicated manga and anime. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That seems like an acceptable compromise. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the third opinion request fot this discussion, since there are already three editors in the discussion.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Even though a standalone page has been created for .hack//G.U. Last Recode, I believe that a consensus from the community moderating this page is best off in deciding as to whether it should be part of the .hack//G.U. article or stay as is. Thoughts? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as it can stand on its own like other remasters/remakes like Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster or Super Street Fighter IV: 3D Edition, I think it deserves its own article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It appears that Last Recode now has a "vol 4" that wasn't in the original? With such an expansion beyond a simple remastering of the original, it probably needs to remain split, as long as sufficient sourcing exists. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That makes me wonder though, Volume 1 to Volume 3 is all in the series article, wouldn't it also make more sense to add Volume 4 to the article too? it's ironic considering that I created the article, but I'm also considering the good article status of .hack//G.U. when it comes to this decision. Iftekharahmed96 (talk)
I guess we should change the current infobox image considering it is actually the cover of Last Recode.  By the way, I remember expanding some sections years ago and thus I would suggest copyediting the article before nominating it Iftekharahmed96.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Changing the current infobox image is easy, I just personally can't be bothered to do it. What's not so easy is trying to make the article distinct enough from the .hack//G.U. Last Recode article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Then what image should we use here? Also, the Last Recode article seems quite outdated. If there is not enough content, other users might merge it here.Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Why does the image need to be changed in the first place? its not outdated at all, it was the debut promotional image for the remaster trilogy. It highlights all the key characters. If I were you, I'd focus on updating .hack//G.U. Last Recode. That's the page that needs some bulking up, the remaster has already been released. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is already a main character list in this article so I don't see why we need another one. I have no intentions of expanding the remaster since I don't own it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobody mentioned about a main character list for the remaster so I don't understand as to why you are diverting this thread. Just out of curiosity, why are you invested in improving this article if you don't own any of the .hack//G.U. games? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I played the original games but not the remaster due to economical issues. That's why I'm not motivated to edit the remaster. Also, I repeat: the prose in this article might need copyediting before going through GA nomination. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:.hack//G.U./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. If I'm not back by this time next week, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ProtoDrake. No rush, but please do ping me on this review as I am a co-nominator and Tintor is having net issues. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium and Tintor2: I've looked through this article. As it stands at the moment, it's fairly close to a pass. It's well researched, comprehensive without being bloated, and stays on topic. There are some points that stood out to me.

Image description of cover art box doesn't match up with categories, and there's no source.
Replaced
Is there a better source for the cast image than TV Tropes? Is that actually where it's from, or was it cooped from somewhere else by them as an illustration?
Replaced image. For some reason, the original image was removed.
In the lead, the term "game within a game" is only used once, and there doesn't appear to be any overt commentary on the usage of this phrase, let alone another place where it's used in quotes.
Done.
In "Gameplay", there should be a mention of the game's true genre as well as its fictional genre.
Done. Action RPG
In "Gameplay", the last sentence of the second paragraph is uncited.
Done
@Axem Titanium: Is BagoGames a reliable, citable source in this instance? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I replaced it with another ref on the VGRS list. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In Reception, the term "translation script" should I think either be "translation" or "translated script".
Done
The following are more suggestions.

Put JP text parts into footnotes, as they can clutter the prose for some readers.
Done
Archive as many sources as seems fit, as things like dev blob posts have an unhealthy habit of becoming inaccessible.
Archived. I still I don't know if I fixed the stuff well. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Those are the ones I noted. Putting on hold for now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Although I revised some stuff, I can't make the footnotes from the lead appropiately. I had to change the image to another group shot.Tintor2 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the footnotes (you missed a set of "}}" template brackets). I updated the image fair use rationales and uploaded a cleaner version of the character image. Thanks for the review, ProtoDrake! I think we covered all these points. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium and Tintor2: With the improvements, I think we can call this a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)