Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Additional Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, release dates are tightly integrated in "Release and promotion" and the section is too short for a split. If  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)

text: 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)

text: I could give it a shot if I had the video. Tezero (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   may try the code bwC7vpk3_rY. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... what do I do with that code? It's not a URL or anything. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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 ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  TheFarix is correct, you misunderstand NFCC here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  For the record, this image was used by Sony Music Entertainment Japan. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

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

message: This section is reserved for a new proposal. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remind  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)
replies: text: Would this involve a user-preferences setting for humor? I don't think one exists. Tezero (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   in the parent section. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed best joke 

message: Regarding this , may  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  The alleged copyright violation will be addressed in due time. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to ''Velikij Drakon'' source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaned up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Automatic archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy