Talk:Ghost in the Shell/Archive 1

message: http://www.tvave.com/CartoonNetwork-G/Ghost_in_the_Shell.php
This website has large portions of this article on it without any sources citing Wikipedia. Isn't that against Wikipedia policy? MisterCheese 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen things like this before.  There are at least 2 sites I know of that reproduced the Pigs Is Pigs (1937) article I originally created here a year ago. -- Jason Palpatine 09:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do we do about it though? I'm a bit reluctant to send an e-mail like it says to do in case of this. MisterCheese 18:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright violation? 

message: Hello. I couldn't help but notice that Kusanagi's camouflage technology is called 'thermoptic'. This technology appears word-to-word in the PC game Deus Ex: an item called 'thermoptic camo' makes the player become invisible to the human eye as well as cameras and robots. I was just wondering if anybody's heard the term appear elsewhere (i.e. is it a common phrase in sci-fi/cyberpunk) or could it be listed as GITS's influence on Deus Ex?
*As far as I know it's just 2 words combined to form a new one to describe the combination. Thermoptic camo seems to be just one of them. The original word originates from Japanese so it might come from whoever translated it. I Don't think it's worth any further mention though, with a succes like GitS ideas and words are bound to pop up in other works. --Jimius 15:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  camouflage 

message: The Ghost in the Shell template links to the manga article at Ghost in the Shell (manga), which previously was a red link, but which I've changed to redirect here. Should this page be moved to Ghost in the Shell (manga) instead? There are many pages that link to this article, Ghost in the Shell, but many (perhaps most) are supposed to be links to the article about the movie, Ghost in the Shell (1995 film). Would it be better if Ghost in the Shell were a disambiguation page? Steve McKinney 08:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above, switching the two article titles. I was searching for the film article, and it was rather hard to find, and I got to this article, which I thought initially as an article on GITS in general. However, it's focused more on the manga itself and I thought it would be better if this article presented information common to all the adaptation of GITS such as recurring themes, and it would be better to move manga plotlines into the Ghost in the Shell (manga) article. What do you guys think? Boneheadmx 04:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is indeed shaping up as a "GitS general topics" sort of thing. I agree that it would be good to flesh out a Ghost in the Shell (manga) article and then change the focus of this main article to reflect its general nature. - mako 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In that case, I will add in a little blurb in the beginning of the article that goes something like this: "This article covers general topics in Ghost in the Shell. For the manga, go to Ghost in the Shell (manga). For the films, go to Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) and Innocence: Ghost in the Shell...etc." Or I could direct people to the template which covers the different releases of GITS. In any case, I already made the manga article a stub, so people can start working on it. Boneheadmx 06:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga 

message: The name of the city is NIIHAMA(新浜). It is not Hong Kong.
The stage is Japan by the original Japanese version. 60.33.34.133 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong in the first film. Why do you list false information? 

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

message: Someone is changing all the instances of "Masamune Shirow" to "Masamune Shirō" in this article. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is the name spelled "Shirō" nor did I find it on any other website at all. Google even corrected it. If you want to discuss it please do it here and we'll work something out, in the meantime I am changing it back since there isn't even an article on "Shirō" and it invalidated the link to Shirow's page. Difeon (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked and I see what you were trying to do. The japanese spelling is "Shirō." However, this is the English article about Ghost in the Shell. Maybe if you want to add his japanese spelling to the article Masamune Shirow, but it is standard on Wikipedia to use English name over Japanese name. Thanks Difeon (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of Japanese or English names. "Shirow" uses a different romanization spelling, but the actual romanization nowadays is "Shirō". His Japanese pen name is 士郎, which can be romanized to either "Shirow" or "Shirō". - M0rphzone (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shirow vs. Shirō 

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

message: Aw, man...someone rewrote my lead? I thought I did a really good job. I followed other featured anime articles as a model. Retreating to the sandbox now...148.137.224.217 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: are you sure? It was too detailed about every aspect of the article. I used Madlax as an example. The lead isnt that long.Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Im fairly certain this article is B-Class, however ive seen other articles that i previously put B-Class back to C. So just to be safe, i would like an outside opinion on the matter. Is there anything that stopping this article from being B-Class?Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to B-class, if anyone thinks its not upto B-class, please mention it here, and we can work it out.Lucia Black (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class? 

message: Anyone believe this article is ready to be nominated for GA? I know the development section needs expansion but i cant find much so i might just merge it with the manga section.Lucia Black (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: well...just gonna be bold about it. i think i've done alot on my own and i can't really find what it needs up at this point.Lucia Black (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN? 

message: This article according to the stats is a top 10000 article on Wikipedia with some 60,000 hits a month. Having it based on the manga instead of the franchise is a bad idea. If anyone can give a good solid reason why this should be so, please state so here. After 12 hours, I think I'll go back to addressing concerns if no valid argument is able to be raised. And for the record, the franchise is notable, it just didn't have a lot of information about it. Here is my plan of action:
# Remove some of the manga details and push them into Ghost in the Shell (manga) 
# Update and correct the issues with plot and story in the manga, the film and such as noted on their individual pages.
# Correctly detail the complex nature of the media as for the story, it is not linear.
# Greatly expand the development section, maybe produce some nice timelines.
# Reduce all media sections with there own pages to a two paragraph summary style, with direct main links to said material.
# Cover the artbooks, storybooks, and other background providing that media as more of a list and informative summary of the work of Shirow for those interested, I doubt they need their own articles for any of them.
# Fix the differences in the Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell 2.0 comparison. At least note it here.
# Fill out the lede some more with at least a few important dates.
# Add a character overview section to the topic. Greatly expand the page containing the list of characters.
# Fix the issue with Motoko Kusanagi page materials being scattered around. Same goes with the other characters like the Laughing Man and the Puppeteer/Puppet master/2501 the whole thing is incoherent.
# Update the appropriate sections for the TV series, summarize briefly and send them off to their own articles, right now they are tiny and underdeveloped. The target pages need to be expanded.
# While not directly related to this page, split the two games from the SAC video game and give them their own articles as they are entirely different games.
# Add the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex manga somewhere.
# Update the nav box to include that.
# Add a section on Ghost in the Shell's philosophical section, cover briefly and then split off to the existing article and detail it. Using the Production IG and other interviews from the staff to back it up, and the official canon documents coming from Shirow.
#Also update its influence and popular culture sections. It has been lampooned in comics, programming and caused a shift in thinking with its social commentary.
# Add something about the Tachikoma and their Fuchi/Uchi counterparts to the main article. Then split off as the article exists.
# Add footnotes to explain complicated series info if need be.
# Split the primary source document references from the secondary ones. Probably not needed, but looks better. 
# Perform a final clean up and then go from there. 
These are the steps I want to take, in a handy list no doubt. Its ambitious, but the entire franchise and its pages need a complete overhaul I think. This should get it to GA if not FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me work on it. I can handle it, its not that big of a project. My ideas are 'fancruft' such as laying out the material broadly so readers can find it? I do not believe that. Also, its the merge itself that bothers me, you lock down meaning to the #1 incoming search term and intend to display that prominently, all but reducing the others to interwiki links. Doesn't seem proper. There is a reason Star Wars covers more then just the movies, with your way, finding the material you want on a subject requires extra digging then should be necessary. You type in Ghost in the Shell, you should get the franchise page, not the manga. But the franchise will direct to the manga when it brings it up, and prominently as well. So will be for the movie and so on. Cover the materials, not just the manga. That's the mantra to go by for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got some stuff started, only one thing on the list done... but its a basic outline now and the strengthening of the article begins. I want to integrate the existing materials in a way that is natural, but without more content on the page it seems a bit bare. More to come later. Still going slow and discussing things with Lucia Black, now on the Anime Wikiproject talk. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been adding the non-Shirow works, the graphic novels and the novels themselves to the article. Only the one tied to Innocence was mentioned elsewhere, so we have a good amount of media that wasn't even covered and by three different writers no less. I did some work today on the figurines, the merchandise, cleaned up the characters, made the interwiki links for those more accessible, did some organizational work and filling out of a few extra things. More to come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

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

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/19/hollywood-ghost-in-the-shell (may go here and/or to the film's article) --Niemti (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about the 1995 film's impact 

message: --Niemti (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or be removed completely..Lucia Black (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just replaced. --Niemti (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That infobox would work great if it were merely films and comics but all Tv series related media will get cluttered.Lucia Black (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The infobox needs to be replaced 

message: I did some work on Motoko's. --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of character articles seriously need attention 

message: I'm moving this down. The arguments are not changing and discussion is extranous, giving space for responses above as this is just arguing. The three of our stances are well established. Let's not flood. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The first is mainly because connects to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. In which splitting off info will most likely cause a near duplicate.Lucia Black (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to clarify. The adaptations are actually spin offs and do have enough info. In fact, they each have their own article and mention their respected media. That's one of the reasons why I'm against this being a franchise, as the spin offs are far too distinct and divided. But their so relavent to the manga. Simply splitting the manga won't do. If split, it will have to mention the same spin offs in the manga article. The only differences between the two is one summarizes the manga info and links to it while the other focus on it.Lucia Black (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: DragonZero, I'm not exactly sure that's what the arguments are. ChrisGualtieri wants there to be a page just dedicated to the original manga separate from this one under the guise that this article should be a "franchise" article and the current coverage of the manga on this page qualifies it for splitting per WP:SS. Lucia (although I cannot exactly speak for her) and I have been arguing that this article should follow the guidelines set forth by several other articles on anime and manga, which discuss the original work at the central page and dedicate other pages to lists of chapters, characters, and episodes, or to films and adaptations unique to the original work of fiction, as having two separate articles in Chris's format would produce either a content or redundant fork. As Chris explicitly states he will not acknowledge any argument that is based only on rhetoric and does not have any policy or guideline behind it, I have countered by saying that saying that the franchise exists is a violation of WP:OR because there is no discussion or reception of Ghost in the Shell as a group; everything is reviewed as the separate parts but never as a whole (aside from I think some comparisons between the films, or maybe it was just comparing SSS to the rest of SAC I can't remember).—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Policy states both those arguments are false, per WP:CFORK: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View." and WP:RELART, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." redundant fork as explicitly stated before is duplication of the same exact topic on different pages. Which means two full articles about the original manga at the same time under different names. A topic level overview as per SS is a summary which serves as the parent article, the detailed coverage of the child page would be the manga. What other anime and manga articles do is not important because the media are not faithful adaptions and does not share plots outside the two Oshii films, leaving some 30 other works which use the GITS world as a foundation without conforming to Shirow's style and form. And can someone make this a RFC? I don't know how to make it one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need an RFC when there's a DRN thread going on. Stop forum shopping and policy shopping. You have two people who disagree with your intention into turning this into a "topic level overview"/"franchise article". Two separate people who independently decided to merge what was once "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" into this page. I have yet to see any reasoning as to why this article should not follow the format set by every other article on anime and manga and be about the original publications from 1989 through 1997. They're all set 10 to 20 years from now. They're all in Niihama/New Port City. They're all about Public Security Section 9. They all star Motoko Kusanagi, Batou, Togusa, and Daisuke Aramaki. They're all cyberpunk. The story level details that you bring up are enough to give the films, the video game, SAC, and ARISE their own pages (and in the case of SAC and ARISE their own family of pages as well). However, there is no reason for the manga to get its own page. The only reason you keep quoting WP:SS as the policy that suggests that it should is because you will not back down from your "franchise page" concept. The fact that this page contains the manga's creation, reception, censorship, and impact seems to just irk you to no end.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  DragonZero, Niemti and Rapunzel-bellflower have indicated a preference for a topic page, but its not about the WP:VOTE. I closed the DRN, Steven Zhang recommended RFC. Wikipedia goes by policy and you keep turning this more and more into a manga page.  We decide based on policy and not objections based on grudges, stick to the content and policy. The top should/will be collapsed if you continue to ramble on. The complaining and circular discussion has to end, it drives away editors and commentators. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you closed the DRN because it wasn't going your way because we kept arguing over it and now you're trying an RFC? And there's absolutely no reason this should not be about the manga. You are the only one who keeps saying "franchise" or "top level" over and over again as if it makes your version any better. There is no policy or guideline that says that this or any article must be a franchise article and have every bit of minutae about its parts off on separate pages, leaving a shell-like list of links to the other pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Let's try a different tactic: It hurt me, personally, when you repeatedly bring up my actions as bad faith and lying and so on. I try to see things from your perspective, but despite the explicit definition of a content fork, you claimed that lemonade should be merged to lemon. Please explain your interpretation of SS and CFORK. And your goal for the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, you should not have tagged the article with . Your refusal to accept that the scope of this article should be the manga does not mean we are giving the manga undue weight. WP:UNDUE is for, as the template says, "certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters". It is not for complaining about the scope of the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Factual accuracy, wrong summary, NPOV issue with reception, marginalization of key works, wrong plot, wrong background. There is plenty that is wrong with this as I pointed out on your talk page. It is not even a correct plot summary and it pushed alternate universes as whole, like Lucia with putting 2501 as in SSS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fix the factual inaccuracies, explain what's wrong with the summary, find reviews that make the reception section neutral, this article is about the manga primarily so we are not going to spend too much attention on the films or SAC, explain what's wrong with the plot, explain what's wrong with the background. You just list off these complaints without saying what's right so I don't know what to fucking do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  How's this Lucia? You win. I admire your other work, but both of you are blinded by a destructive grudge. Wikipedia is not a battleground; we focus on proper coverage of topics of all sorts. Round and round the talks went, but cooperation and compromise were stomped out by a feud. Lucia, I preferred your one manga article to Ryulong's manga and list. The only issue was and still is whether or not the entire topic should have its article. The manga is notable, the franchise as is notable. I sought only to improve the articles, I'm retracting because the name of the article doesn't matter and since you spend the majority of your time fighting me, its a loss for Wikipedia and its readers. If you want to work together, hear me out and I'll hear you out, until we both respect one another, nothing will ever come of this. Even if we disagree on points, we share a common interest. This is my final plea, for the sake of this article and everyone who has ever loved Shirow's work, let's work together on this! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of chapters should still be off on its own article as per like every other manga there is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about what is and what isn't at this point. We need to work together on this. If we do not know where each other stand on this matter the articles will continue to suffer. Are all three of us willing to drop the feuding to work together? I'm not perfect, but I don't think any of us seek to ruin this page, the infighting is consuming too much of our editing time. We devote more time to arguing then anything else. If Lucia supports it, then tomorrow I will open up discussion after everyone has had a chance to sleep on this and cool off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You could still tell us what the errors on the page are so they could be fixed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable Lucia, let's not discuss it tonight and let's take this slow. Ryulong, User_talk:ChrisGualtieri#Easy_fixes was at my talk page. If you do not agree with any of them, don't change them. Tomorrow, I'll propose some discussion of non-content matters to get a feeling for where we all stand on this. Have a good night, Ryulong and Lucia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those easy fixes ask for way too many details that are not necessary (and are pretty much trivial).—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: It's probably best we discuss this in our talkpages where one has more freedom.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not about turning it into a forum or anything. This is about understanding our interests which define our decisions. I'm telling you what I like about the work in hopes that we establish some familiarity as fans of the work and find something in common to begin discussing. For instance, the non-puppet master chapters and the humor of the work, I'd like some mention of that because it breathes life into the work, our plot looks like the Oshii film. Its not far off-topic so much as to bring everyone to a page where we can agree to disagree. It is hard to hate someone you know and share interests with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the manga, watched the films, and SAC. SAC is my preffered.Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay... Very good. Now I'm going to bring this up. Why do we have a separate page for this list of chapters? It is better served in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a common practice.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: List of Enigma manga chapters A list has to demonstrate notability for itself as it is a stand alone article as per policy. Policy and its reasoning is the only thing that matters here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I was thinking of making sub-sections for the "universes" in which to lay out content. With the original manga being one set. The Oshii adaptations being under "original adaptation/Film" or some sort, and the original video game being listed within. SAC would be represented by the show (since season 1 and 2 may end up being combined as a single page) with mentions to the two OAV and the SSS film following; afterwards the novels and the SAC mangas would be listed as well as the SAC video games. Arise would get its own section. Non-specific sections like the pachislots I guess would fall under "Other". 
However, that also presents some organization problems... should it be chronological with a table of universe media in some fancy format? Or should that just be a side-bar for accessibility. And what about the music? Should that be included or no. I really need to bounce some ideas to find what makes most sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. That is just a way for you to transform this page into the "franchise page" that myself and Lucia, who is now banned but her opinion is still somewhat valid, opposed. This page is about the manga and it provides short summaries of the other releases in their real world contexts only. Expand upon the plots of the other versions on their own articles rather than this one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It already as the adaptions covered; I was asking about its organization. I not even mentioning plot here. I've already nommed the film to be a GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The current organization of the media section seems to suffice, in that it presents the information in chronological order of first entry. I believe we should instead focus some energy on merging 2nd GIG with the main SAC article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Should we push the list of episodes and their content together under GITS:SAC and just relabel the episode list as "List of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes"? Are you able to get and translate the SAC logs? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two separate lists of episodes is fine. Having two separate pages on the TV show seasons is not. And I don't have that kind of expendable income at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what I'd do without my library and anime DVD blowouts round here, but agreed. If SAC is combined and worked on, I supposed I could get that to GA level within 48 hours. Just a heads up, I've got a copy of Critical Anime coming through the inter-loan system which I am doing for "Cyborg Adolescence in FLCL", but also the Lain chapter... I suppose the first could involve GITS - but I don't know if anything specific will come up. Do you happen to have the Cyberpunk book, I still need that source before going too much further on Innocence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could feasibly get these things from Amazon and get them within a day or so but I am not in the mood to start spending money just for Wikipedia, particularly concerning I don't know how my stipend is going to change in October (and I'd rather save up for a CD that hasn't been put onto iTunes yet).—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the whole 

message: Where would I put influences on real life, like eg:   http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html (which has refs at the bottom) ?  --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting question. Perhaps we need to introduce an "influence" section. Although, I think World of Ghost in the Shell discusses the optical camouflage.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  influences on real life