Talk:.hack

message: ::I was thinking about maybe creating a category entitled Category:.hack series voice actors. Is it a good idea?
Musicalmelodygirl 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at your gallery, the first thing I noticed was a photo I took that I've never released the copyright to.  No credit or anything.  Claims of it being the largest gallery should also be supported by some sort of evidence...  In addition, the wiki on the site has entire pages that are just patchwriten from the .hack//WIKI without giving credit or using a compatible license. - Kuukai2 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating Category

message: The way the page is written, it says that the parts of .hack// that are done by the new companies are in the 'official canon', which would seem to throw doubt on whether they are part of the unofficial canon, AKA, what the fans think. Is there any such discord? I only ask out of curiosity- I don't really think there is another wording for the information, it just interested me. T.z0n3 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: .hack//G.U. onward

message: Please stop vandalizing the wiki. Wikipedia has no "First is most important rule", and there are many other multimedia wiki pages that have infoboxes for ALL the media involved in the project regardless of which came out at what date. Hell, the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya links to the anime, even though the light novels came out several years before. Besides, .hack//Sign came out two months before .hack//Infection, so your point is moot anyway. --[[75.135.82.7 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not vandalizing, and but the way, there's an article for the Haruhi light novels.Kazu-kun 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but is it the main page you see when you search "Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya"? This is the page for the entire .hack series, so it should information on the series as a whole. That includes anime and manga. Just because you have some sort of vendetta against putting information here doesn't mean the rest of us .hack fans do. --CRtwenty 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you know what good faith means. Anyway, I don't have any vendetta or whatever, and I'm not being rude to you either, as opposed to you. I have nothing against improving the article. I just want you to discuss things first because there are policies and guilines we have to follow here on wikipedia. That's all.Kazu-kun 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It needs to point to all the various parts of .hack. .hack isn't one series with a bunch of spin offs, it refers to all the pieces as a whole. --199.242.209.47 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We're not dealing with one series and its adaptations. .hack is a franchise: various series comprising one sole thing.Kazu-kun 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys see why I created .hack//Wiki? Because of Wikipedia's shitty rules and guidelines and dumbass users. ZOMG! TEH FLAMES!! It's pointless to try and argue with him. It's obvious he's too hardheaded to see that .hack should link to its various series, like Star Wars does. The #1 rule of Wikipedia is no consistency. Wikipedia is supposed to be based off English names and such, yet I see weeaboo-esque articles for the DBZ series like Kuririn and Yamucha. Kulaguy 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely, .hack is a franchise. So why aren't all the parts of it clearly explained on the main page? As the main page for the entire series, one should be able to get a brief understanding of the entire series from it without having to go into the tons of minor articles (most of which are quite frankly, unnecessary). You claim to want to improve the article, but all I've seen so far is an attempt to revert any attempt to improve the page. Just a few days ago this page contained absolutely no useful information, and yet you keep trying to revert it back to that state. Why? --CRtwenty 09:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazu-kun: 

message: I merged Project .hack and .hack Conglomerate into this article. That way it links to all its series, as Kulaguy suggested.Kazu-kun 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the article looks a whole let better now. --CRtwenty 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: would there be any objections if I wrote an article for .hack//GU+?  Especially now that it's being distributed in English by Tokyopop, I think it deserves one. Sairith (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: .hack//G.U.+

message: I'm not sure about all the sites, but I know that dothackers.net has interviews and reviews, so it looks like it falls under WP:ELYES part 4.  Iirc it's been used as a source by the official Altimit Corp ARG website and IGN, so it meets reliability criteria as well.  If no one objects I'll re-add it in a week. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I wikified the "setting" part of the article. Can someone else please wikify the "main storyline" header? Quintusπ talk 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: I notice that article currently contains the "sentence":
:In the game's 'r simultaneous crash of all computers and network control systems on the 'Real World', Pluto's Kiss, a virus written by a ten-year-old elementary school student, caused aInternet]] that did not run on the ALTIMIT OS, which subsequently became the dominant operating system worldwide.
I had a quick look in the history to try and fix it, but one of the regular editors probably will stand a better chance. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: oh yeah, i see, no wonder the section looked a bit off.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost content 

message: After being invited to join, beyond the obvious lack of any legacy/reception/impact, I do notice this article has a lot of media listings. Typically for franchises, these are ported to a list like List of Dragon Quest media and I think the .hack franchise has enough such items it should do so.陣内Jinnai 19:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: there already is a list of .hack media article, if that's what you meant. but it does need citation and verificationBread Ninja (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, those sections should be reformatted into prose and possibly merge/remove some of the lesser ones as done in Dragon Quest.陣内Jinnai 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i made pre-articles on list of .hack novels and .hack manga chapters, so i think those could replace some of the two sections. But i don't think it could all be in prose. The header could give more history on the media or explain it in different sections.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media List 

message: Looks like there is a new movie for this series coming out.  I'd love to see an article about it, including all known voice actors, etc.  97.75.172.122 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  .hack//The Movie 

message: Just for the record, in case it comes up later on, I used the following diff when reapplying edits that were made after the section blanking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.hack&action=historysubmit&diff=470735898&oldid=452977873
Search4Lancer (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored blanked sections 

message: Not proposing a move just yet, but should this article (and related articles) be renamed to Dot Hack? This spelling is closer to standard English, and there do seem to be sources that have used it (or dotHack, Dot.Hack, etc.), along with the logo’s “DOT” in the dot. Just throwing the question out there. —Frungi (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every piece of .hack media has the "DOT" in the dot. See Quantum for example. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: its still readable and doesnt interfere with sentence structure. So im against the move. And im unsure if they ever use "dot.hack", the most ive seen was "dot hack" or "dot-hack".03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

text: My main point wasn’t that a logo uses it, but that sources use it. But as I said, I’m not going to push for it, just making the suggestion. I like the .hack name, personally, even though Dot Hack is probably more readable. —Frungi (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''.hack'' vs ''Dot Hack'' 

message: The setting section contains major spoilers... super angry rage (but I don't know how to include a warning banner)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.142.109 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on .hack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225646/http://www.protoculture.ca/PA/PA75edito.htm to http://www.protoculture.ca/PA/PA75edito.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225710/http://www.protoculture.ca/eZine/hack.htm to http://www.protoculture.ca/eZine/hack.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128185240/http://www.dothack.com/ to http://www.dothack.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :.hack Character Classes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#.hack Character Classes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ".hack Character Classes" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]