Wikipedia

Talk:Ghost in the Shell/Archive 2

< Talk:Ghost in the Shell
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ryulong in topic current status
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Split off manga specific info

The manga specific info should be split off to Ghost in the Shell (manga) and use this as a fictional universe overview page, which can discuss the similarity and differences between the films, manga, and tv anime. 70.51.11.121 06:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. In my opinion, it's a bit confusing when all three (manga, anime and the "universe") are mixed up in one article. The films and the manga aren't even directly related (in sense that the plots would go together), which also supports splitting it up.(The split has already been made it seems, but I think we ought to try keep it this way instead of merging the manga page into the main article. A rewrite is needed tho, to clearly separate the two.) Pasi 00:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the amount of content that's been written/posted on GIS, I also agree with the split btw the manga & fictional universe here and the film(s) off on its own with a disambiguation page. Makes perfect sense. Wonder if anyone disagrees? My 2c. 2KT 08 June 2006
I doubt anyone who knows the series would disagree. The manga, the movies, and the TV series all seem to exist as their own entities. I suppose the comics and movies might have continuity, but the show is definitely it's own alternate timeline, where Motoko didn't fuse with the Puppetmaster. Luna Santin 11:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly agree with the above. In its current form the article is rather unwieldly and. It might even be dvisable to split off the section on ghosts, as that applies equaly to all three incarnations. Go for the diambiguation and split. Mr. Pants 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Music Section

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think the music section is appropriate for this article. I propose moving them to their respective animes. What do you guys think? Boneheadmx 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anville 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The Rod 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the information on the music to their respective media. Boneheadmx 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Anville 07:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I agree that separate articles are warranted, but we should not create a disambiguation page. Priority should be given to the movie that popularized the franchise, and separate articles should be maintained for the manga, sequel, and TV series.

GITS mess

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

from Talk:Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex:

Wait, what the hell is all this? I don't know who did what, but this is a freaking mess. Look at that nav template, holy crap man. And why are things being listed as 1st and 3rd Gig, when only "2nd Gig" was used as a name? It doesn't matter what one article was originally for or what, this whole mess needs to be restructured and re-evaluated. For starters, no articles with fan-names like 1st and 3rd Gig. Second, original SAC and 2nd Gig should be merged back to here, split sections off as needed, but not like this This... is just so sloppy.... Third, that nav template... is too big.....
Don't anyone go freaking out just yet. No one is going to be doing something that will look stupid, in any case. Get some ideas for article structure and so on. This is a damn good anime and it deserves better than this. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
*cough* sorry for the harsh reaction, but it was quite a shock ;) -- Ned Scott 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, running through the template and such, this is all the GTIS stuff on Wikipedia right now (excluding the images, of course):

Main

Manga

Anime

Anime movie

Novels

Video Games

Organizations

Characters

Locations

Misc.

Categories

Templates

I'm thinking mostly just the anime and intro articles need working on, but I haven't looked at everything yet. A lot of splitting and merging and all that has been happening, and it's just time we clean house, that's all. Right now, look around, get some ideas of how to structure everything better. We'll agree on things and plan things out, so no one has to worry about any rash action for now. -- Ned Scott 09:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The characters (most small articles or stubs) are in my list of character articles that need to be merged. I may be bold with them.. --Kunzite 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've Prod'ed Ghost in the Shell (anime film series) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) (disambiguation), and put merge notices on Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (1st GiG), Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG, and Ghost in the Shell: Tachikoma Days to be merged to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Also, merged Cyberbrain Sclerosis to Cyberbrain. -- Ned Scott 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't combining all the SAC articles into one article lead to a 20-page long mess? They're already quite long as they are... Dark Shikari 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be a very dumb idea. Thankfully no one has suggested that. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: There's another article to consider... Stand Alone Complex. 132.205.95.25 20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seburo Merge Proposal

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Kunzite has suggested that the Seburo article be merged with the Ghost in the Shell article. I am against this merge as the fictional company is used in just about all of Shirow's works, not just GITS. --YoungFreud 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. hmm. I hadn't realized that. Well, that removes merging to GITS as an option. How does this article assert notability? There are no citations. It could be merged to Shirow's article. --Kunzite 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to break out the Intron Depot, Appleseed, and other books out. Heck, we don't even have an article on Posieden Industrial for christ sakes!! Besides, this merger idea is a stupid idea because it's an essential part of several "universes" in Shirows works.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also become a part of other universes as well. Second Life for one, the gaming mod community for another. It COULD be merged to Shirow, but I think the Seburo name is actually more notable outside of Shirow's universe. --Mdwyer 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

delete locations category

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

NOTE: I've CfD'd Category:Ghost in the Shell locations - 132.205.45.148 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#Category:Ghost in the Shell locations

De-ghosting

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could somebody tell me where the de-ghosting stuff is mentioned? I've read all the comics and seen all the movies/tv-episodes, but I don't remember it ever coming up. It's not exactly unthinkable that I would have missed it, of course, there's a lot going on. I'm just curious. risk 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

External Memory

I find this section confusing. Is it suggesting that the 'external memory' mentioned in the anime refers to the physical objects the cyborgs keep to remind them of their humanity (eg. kusanagi's watch)? In the second movie Togusa and Batou both exchange philosophical quotes from their 'external memories', which would seem to imply that the phrase refers to a type of data storage implant in the brain, and not the redundant artefacts the cyborgs like to keep.

Impact and influence section

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think as the impact and influence section mostly deals with the 1995 Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) (the Matrix influences et all), this portion should be instead moved to the 1995 film's own article, instead of this article. If there aren't any objections, I think it should be moved as soon as possible. ~ Ganryuu 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually, this article itself should be just a starting point for all the other GITS articles, anyways -- Ned Scott 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this section compares lots of unsimilar things between ghost in the shell and the matrix, should be removed or shortened.

cyberbrain merge

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think the cyberbrain article should be merged into the main GITS article. While it is a central concept, It can easily grow beyond just GITS. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic of the Cyberbrain is a complicated enough subject thet it should be kept separate, it will very easily grow to become a much larger article. Ben W Bell talk 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I too believe that the cyberbrain should remain standing on its own, and I've removed the merge template as there has been no dissenting comment here in the past 1.5 months. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Stand_Alone_Complex has been linked. Please review! :-)

Why was the Stand Alone Complex (concept) article expunged and redirect here?
20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Batou/Bateau's name

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

According to Talk:Batou#Bateau and User:Shame On You's subsequent [edit], Batou's name is more correctly spelled Bateau in English. Some googling confirmed that the "Bateau" spelling is fairly common and present in some DVD sleeves. Based on this, I moved the article to Buttetsu Bateau and changed the spelling where I could find it. User:Ben W Bell and I discussed this on our talk pages here and here. He points out that Batou is more common and used on [Production IG's official site]. We need to pick one or the other, but be consistent. Kundor 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed appear that both versions of the spelling in English are indeed used. The original GitS film on English release does state Bateau in the end credits (but Batou in the subtitles), as does the US release of one of the soundtracks. Doing some searches does indeed reveal that the spelling is indeed used quite a bit on the internet, often in the case of film and DVD reviews that I can see, but also on some fan sites. The other spelling, Batou is also very common, is the spelling used in the Official Logs for the TV series, is the spelling used in the TV series and is the spelling used on Production IG's official site, as Kundor has pointed out above. Straightforward Google counts show Batou is found more frequently than Bateau, but we all know Google counts aren't the be all and end all of fact finding and can be skewed quite easily. So I recommended we have a discussion, try and pull in as many people as possible and come up with an agreement as to which one we should use (while also mentioning the other is a common alternative spelling as well). People's thoughts? Cases? Opinions? Ben W Bell talk 10:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I went in and changed the spelling to Batou on pages having anything to do with the TV show. Not the movies, books, or manga. My justification being the ending credits of both seasons DVDs spell it as Batou, not Bateau. Just trying to be consistent with the DVDs. I figure if anyone knew the correct spelling, the production company would...--Salvax T - C--21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The name Batou is now official and the Buttetsu_Bateau article was redirected to Batou.User:Shame On You was blocked for extreme and gross violations of our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies.--Neuromancien 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary expansions

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

There was absolutely no need for that level of expansion ChrisGualtieri. It was compltely unnecessary to copy and paste sections from other articles onto this one. You constantly quoted WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in your arguments previously but your edits to this page to copy word for word the video game and print media sections from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex was pointless. We should not be giving readers the exact same content that they would see on other pages. I haven't reverted you outright but my summarizations pretty much do that anyway. This article does not need every single bit of information on release dates in every language or exact titles or extensive detail on how one universe differs from the other. It needs succinct information that leads readers to go to the other pages. Also, dividing up content based on "universes" is a really fannish thing to do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I compressed it further, the information is still part of the franchise and are major aspects. A single sentence or two shared between pages is not a problem when the other is purposeful omission. Information in summary could be 2x the lede and still be fine under SS, but the tiniest of mentions are given to notable works and you are taking an extreme stance on "redundancy" by choosing to omit the majority of different media simply because they are mentioned in the briefest form on another page. A sub-page of this page's topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It was barely compressed at all. We do not need to have the exact same level of coverage on this page as we do on every other page. We do not need to give explicit details on the release information of every single aspect here when it should be only mentioned in full elsewhere. This is the only difference between the two versions, and that's basically just cutting down on the description of the SAC manga. You should not expand the content by copying and pasting crap from the other pages. We do not need to give so much detail on the minor aspects of both SAC and ARISE here. It is not the "briefest form" on another page. You've just copied and pasted the stuff there to this one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And, again, the "universe" presentation is unprofessional, not to mention unnecessary. We do not need to give coverage here to items that do not have their own article or should be summarized on other articles. Anything about SAC should be mentioned at its own page and not given a full write up here. Harry Potter and Halo (series) don't look like this at all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, completely. Stop removing content that meets the actual definition of Page Layout or just remove the dates, but not the existence of these works. "Video games have also been released for Stand Alone Complex for the PlayStation 2, the PlayStation Portable, and Mobage. A massively multiplayer online game is also in production. A series of novels and two manga series have also been released for Stand Alone Complex." Is completely useless. It doesn't even give names. It is a bad removal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't need the names here. They're listed at Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where they're more relevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. The Halo page is so much better constructed, but you won't even let the mere names of the material be covered as they are there. And that's not counting spinoff's spinoffs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Halo doesn't have spinoffs off spinoffs. We don't list every single Kingdom Hearts or Crystal Chronicles game at Final Fantasy why should we give the names of every single manga or video game of SAC here?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It links and Kingdom Hearts and Crystal Chronicles and are not titled "Final Fantasy: Kingdom Hearts II" where as Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex can mean the show, either of the two games, or the print material and are all contained within the Ghost in the Shell name, franchise and setting. I'm done talking with you, entirely, without a proper mediator. My focus is on making authoritative articles on the media for encyclopedic use, whatever personal issues you have with that is not something I can resolve or fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin comment: I'm not going to protect the article just yet. Another admin may decide to do so. Both of you should not continue editing the article without first working out your disagreement or coming to a compromise. Doing so may result in a block on both of you, which can be escalated to longer durations as necessary.
Also, since this is a dispute between two editors, it may help to solicit a third opinion; Wikipedia:Third opinion is an excellent place to do that. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There previously were more but they stopped caring and one got topic banned.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, ChrisGualtieri, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. When people think "Stand Alone Complex" they do not think of the PS2 or PSP game or any of the manga or novelizations. And you should not assume bad faith either. I want what's best for these articles and right now I think we have one too many because the franchise is not independently notable from the manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And I'm not going to accept him as a mediator because he is not an uninvolved party. Either we wait for Kim Bruning to come back or we request a new mediator at the DRN entry.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Generally I am of the opinion that it should be a brief explanatory paragraph on the other media format, including one or two important/interesting facts, with the majority of the detail left to the in-depth article on the subject. However there is such a thing as culling too much. Some of the stuff you removed (while copied) served as a good lead to make readers look at the in-depth article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What from what I culled should be reinstated? There's no real need to provide details on things which have no independent articles yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That way madness lies. The bar for entry for info in a wikipedia article is 'is it reliably sourced and will it be useful'. We dont exclude stuff because it does not have a dedicated article devoted to it, as the barrier for a dedicated article is higher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
But it is not necessary to list all of the media relating to just the Stand Alone Complex series on this page when that should be covered in detail on the Stand Alone Complex page rather than this one. People coming to this page do not need a thorough summary of everything that was ever released for a spin-off.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You won't even allow them to be named. SAC should be about the anime and be concise about its other media, and much of SAC's details should be on this page for proper context. We do not need to pull double duty on such pages when one can do it better and more clearly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Why should we name them? Why should we give an extensive overview of SAC here? That's what the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex article is for.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by your shifting stances, its not even coherent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm being fairly clear that I don't think it's necessary to feature everything about Stand Alone Complex on Ghost in the Shell when it's better left at Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

current status

Latest comment: 11 years ago52 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I was away working (a necessary evil in this economy :-P) , but haven't forgotten to look in on this discussion (do expect me to be slow though!) .

As for the current status of the page: I do find for myself personally that now I can actually find information I'm looking for re: Ghost in the Shell, while before I could not. Is that somehow related to how I find information as compared to how other people search? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some big things are happening in the A&M space, but I wonder if this should become a set index or a disamb. Neon Genesis Evangelion has become the anime page instead of the franchise based on a move request, not that I agree with the logic, a month or two to see the impact would definitely help with reasoning in the future. As most articles in these areas are not GA level and currently are pretty poor, I've mulled over the ideas for a bit, but I guess I should perhaps get all these to GA level and nom them before I make any real fuss. I've been extremely busy with my own work, but I've gotten Napier's essays and a few others so I can finish a few more things in this area. Stand Alone Complex is kinda weird as well, since its a pseudo-franchise instead of just the anime, but whatever, the manga should be first before I worry about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Stop referring to things as franchises when they're not. We should not be having any of these weird "franchise only" pages for items that are not sequential series of media. All of the information contained within this page would best be merged with the manga page and no disambiguation page or index page in its place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it is a franchise and meets the definition of one, now stop repeating yourself over and over again about how you hate the term. MOSAM is a failure, it is not even valid, some localconsensus that has done great harm to A&M is the basis for many problems. Now, DISAMB says what should be done, "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, ..., the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page." You've dodged the matter for 5 months, this is policy, counter with policy and your CFORK and REDUNDANTFORK arguments are not applicable. Just because it is difficult to make a proper page doesn't mean you get rid of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not mention WP:MOSAM at all. And you have no means to call it invalid. "Ghost in the Shell" the manga is the only item that has primacy over the other items solely named "Ghost in the Shell" that gives it primary topic status. Everything else is disambiguated on its own, and I seriously doubt anyone will say the film deserves to be the primary topic over the work of fiction that produced it. There is absolutely nothing on WP:DISAMB or any other policy or guideline that says media sections as preferred by the anime WikiProject are completely forbidden. You are the only one to push this because of your insistence that discussion of the manga as a whole be entirely separate from discussion of the other works. I still think the fact that two separate people came to the conclusion that the pages should be merged on independent occasions means something.
I will state my side on this once more. This article is pointless. It is not a franchise. The concept of "Ghost in the Shell" is not notable on its own, and there is no level of expansion by adding the name of every single thing that has ever had "Kokaku Kidotai" or "GHOST IN THE SHELL" plastered on it that will change that, particularly if those items belong to the other media (e.g. an artbook released for the first film should not be mentioned within the context of every other artbook on this page). This article should be a part of Ghost in the Shell (manga) and that page should be titled "Ghost in the Shell" because the manga is the primary topic and the film that came out years later as an adaptation should be at a disambiguated title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Kim, I do not think this is going to be fixed outside of mediation. Ryulong doesn't want to identify what a franchise is and has unusual beliefs in what constitutes a PTOPIC - changing the criteria as he desires. The argument is not consistent for "primacy" and given the MOSAM matter, I think only a strong backing by actual policy is the way forward. Ryulong disagrees on rhetoric; my compromises are rejected because of this all or nothing way from Ryulong. Hasteur wanted Lucia Black back from topic ban to take part in mediation, delaying the issue further, but I can continue to create high quality articles in the mean time. If anything, I think Ryulong should stop removing important information, including the names of the works.[1] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in that diff is relevant for this article. We should not be splitting things up into "different universes". We do not need to say how the chapters are titled in each graphic novel collection. We do not need to give that much detail on the plots of the films or the video game or the TV series. We do not need to list every piece of media ever released for Stand Alone Complex on this page when it belongs at Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. We no longer need to list the separate ARISE episodes on this page. Everything that was in the "Other Media" section belongs on the manga page because it is related to the manga and none of the other works. You cannot even properly format these pages considering you never italicize the titles of anything that should be italicized. And there is nothing on this project that says people are required to support their arguments with WP link after WP link like you do, and half the time you cherrypick things that have one sentence that supports your argument when the whole of the policy contradicts it. How am I supposed to accept your arguments in such a case?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, I note that you answered to ChrisGualteri, but have not addressed my own statement. I think it might help if you ignore ChrisGualteri ( with due respect! :-) for now and just answered me directly. (and idem ditto vice versa )

I think the base discussion here is about how the pages are organized.

Re-wording slightly, do you find that your (proposed) organization of the pages makes it easier or harder to find information on the diverse Ghost in the Shell properties? Is this a concern for you at all?

If so/not, can you briefly argue in general: how does your position improve the encyclopedia? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between my proposal and the current set up is that there's one less article. I do not know how much easier or harder it would be to find information with that set up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, well, by corollary to WP:IAR: I hold that the minimum requirement for any edit (no matter how good or how crazy) is that you do need to at least be able argue how it improves the encyclopedia, if/when you are asked for your reasoning.
If you don't yet know for yourself how much easier or harder it would be to find information, could you please take some time to consider the question, and come up with a valid answer?
Alternately, could you provide an alternate reasoning on how your preferred course of action improves the encyclopedia in some other way?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) You could also try to argue why my question is invalid, I guess; but that might be tricky, because the assumption is embedded so deeply in all policy that even IAR states it.
Well, my proposal was the state of the article prior to you having to work, having only been turned back into the version from last year due to the intervention of another third party. I don't know how much more difficult or easier it was here. It contains the exact information as the present version, although there was a heavier focus on content now found on Ghost in the Shell (manga) (namely plot and reception).—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that clearly establishes the alternatives. Can you state your argument in favor of your preference, specifically how it makes for a better encyclopedia article, and better yet how/if it improves finding of information? I want to take your position into account, but I'll need something to go on, right? :-) Am I asking the wrong question? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It gets readers to the article on the manga first, with brief introductions on the films, video game, SAC TV series, and ARISE film things all in one page rather than having everything about the manga on another article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so that clearly establishes what your preference looks like. So why is getting to the manga first better? How does it improve the encyclopedia, according to you?
So looking at the alternative: ChrisGualteri ~says that their preferred current layout makes it easier to find what people are looking for (including information about the manga), and that with that layout, they can easily get all the sub-articles up to GA.
... which sounds like a net win for Wikipedia, if ChrisGualteri manages to pull that off.
* Can you tell me how your preferred layout is more beneficial?
* ( Or, alternately, perhaps ChrisGualteri is being too optimistic. Do you agree or disagree with ChrisGualteri's assessment? )
* (Or perhaps I'm asking the wrong questions. If so, what should I be asking, according to you?)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I just think the franchise set up is unnecessary for a piece of media that's not as spread out as others. And this same level of information should belong as a unified article on the manga and what it spawned rather than leaving this by itself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that is a very interesting opinion to hear, but I'm not sure what the consequences are yet. In particular it doesn't quite seem to cover A. Why people should   support your preferred layout; and/or alternately B. How ChrisGualteri's view is flawed; and/or alternately C. if/why I am pursuing the wrong line of questioning.
Am I missing something important?
Perhaps one last try, this time from the other side:
what would be the downside if we left things as it is? Will wikipedia be missing essential information on GitS? Will people not be able to find things? Will quality be lower?
In short, what is the compelling reason to do it the way you propose? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you're even asking me anymore so we are obviously going with C.
  • The only difference between the current format and the format I proposed months ago, enacted, and have been battling with ChrisGualtieri for the past 5 months, is that Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) are not separate pages. Barely anyone visited Ghost in the Shell (manga) [2] in comparison to [3] (the film page and the TV page got 20 times as many hits as the separate manga page in this arbitrarily chosen date).
  • And I see no functional difference between the version of the page I had put forward months ago and the current one such that you are suddenly able to glean more information from it than you were before. All the page additionally contained was a bare minimum plot summary of the two graphic novels and a reception section of the graphic novels. Everything on the page now was there before.
  • What isn't there and I also oppose is the extensive unofficial splitting of the media into separate "universes" (fan jargon is out of place on Wikipedia) and flooding this page with extensive descriptions of all of the media ever titled "Ghost in the Shell" despite nearly all of it being media of related media. Listing every novel and video game released for Stand Alone Complex is pointless here when the information belongs and is still found at the page on Stand ALone Complex.
So having a separate page dedicated to just the manga without connecting it to any of the other media provides our readers with a disservice and hides potentially good or featurable material on a page no one will ever go to all because of an apparent crusade against WP:MOSAM, starting from when Dragon Ball Z was merged for 5 years.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

<-(deindent) Ah, some of this actually contains info I'm looking for that I can work with :-)

  • I think it makes sense that Ghost in the Shell (manga) would get less visits, since it's about a 1991 manga. In 2013 I'd expect people to be looking up info on eg. Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Arise instead [4]. Which does indeed appear to be the case.
  • So here you're saying that ChrisGualtieri hasn't actually made such a large improvement (yet). (which falls under B "ChrisGualtieri's view might be flawed")
  • re "Listing every novel and video game released for Stand Alone Complex is pointless here": I suppose this depends on the objective of this page. If it's an overview/index/dab, it helps to have all the overview-information in one place, and detail information elsewhere. It's definitely something we can ask ChrisGualteri to comment on.
  • I think your last argument (offering readers a disservice) also falls under B. So I'm definitely going to put that to ChrisGualtieri to answer too.

Now I have something to work with. Let me try talk with Chris now :-)--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


@ User:ChrisGualtieri: Here's some points I'd like to take through with you:

  • You state that it's a lot easier to find information with the current format. But Ryulong asserts that there is no large functional difference (yet) from 4 months ago. Do you agree with that assessment? Didn't you say you were trying to improve the page? What's going on?
  • Why is there a listing for every novel and video game released for Stand Alone Complex, when there is also a separate Stand Alone Complex page we could put them on. What is your reasoning here?
  • Ryulong feels that the information currently on Ghost in the Shell (manga) is currently not sufficiently connected to other GitS info, and therefore attracts less traffic. Do you agree with this assessment?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the first question, the conflict has stagnated development, but the set index or disamb idea is of interest to me because I saw this as a way to achieve a compromise. The fact we do not jump off to individual works in this page is of concern to me, and Ryulong calls this "unimportant",[5] but I consider it to be key for both navigating and comprehending the topic. Secondly, Ghost in the Shell is a complex body of works, but SAC should not be a pseudo-franchise page. Even within the "SAC universe" the works are unrelated. It is more like Fullmetal Alchemist, covers broadly, nothing specifically. Also, I'd prefer one topic page, not two or three, as Arise is independent from both the original and SAC universes. If GITS is a topic page it makes sense to contain the overview of all the media and splits and not just link to another topic page. And the word choice of "Universes" is just a term, canonacity aside, replace with whatever word you think is applicable. Lastly, the GITS manga is missing connections to other media, but this is easily rectified, the "no redundancy" has been a concern - my ideal connection would be to a franchise linked template and links to the movies and the video game, the main source of inspiration with a brief mention of the SAC body of works and Arise, with SAC moving back to the topic level page on "SAC's media". If we can reach an agreement here, I will finish the page up within 62 hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I am going to have to interject here Kim and object to this plan of yours Chris. Anything about "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" should be discussed within the context of "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" rather than within the context of everything that is "Ghost in the Shell". If we are never going to be making articles for these media then this doesn't really turn the Stand Alone Complex article into a "pseudo-franchise article". It's just an article that lists other media that have been produced for Stand Alone Complex.
This page should not give readers an extensive overview of everything that was released for a particular piece of media when that piece of media has its own separate article. The same goes for discussion of plot summary of the individual works when this page, whether it is this separate "franchise" article or a portion of another article should give a terse overview rather than delve into specifics.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please remove your post and wait till you are addressed by Kim. I waited for you and did not interrupt or interject your discussion - it is only fair you extend the same courtesy to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you have given a deadline for which you will do the changes to which I have already previously objected to gave me reason to say something.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I just said I could finish it within that time frame because that is when I'll have the most time. There is not even much work to be done, I find this interjection rude and unnecessary. Please refrain from commenting anymore until addressed, otherwise I will seek to do so in private because these interjections disturb the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Ryulong. Just because I advise you not to do something, doesn't mean you should then go ahead and do it forthwith. ;-)

I realize that this is informal, and you have been behaving within wikipedia policies/guidelines/essays...

... on the other hand not all behavior within the frame of p/g/e need be constructive.

Do you believe that your behavior is constructive at this juncture? (and how so?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"I think it might help if you ignore ChrisGualteri ( with due respect! :-) for now and just answered me directly. (and idem ditto vice versa )" [6] .
I then gave you my full attention, and ChrisGualtieri politely waited their turn. However, when it was ChrisGualtieri's turn, you immediately interjected. [7].
At this moment in time, when you interact with ChrisGualtieri (or they with you), the outcome does not appear to be productive. Would you consent to waiting your turn, while I pay attention to ChrisGualtieri's position? I can then come back to you with just the key points. (Just like I was now discussing your key points with ChrisGualtieri). --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, whatever.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Your heart doesn't quite seem to be in it in that reply. :-/ Just to be sure, are you ok? I don't want to pursue this to the point of wikiburnout of any party, obviously.--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I've gotten myself embroiled in something that should be a non-issue with another editor it is impossible for me to communicate with. All of this arguing where the other side will not back down despite the fact I had made concessions is getting bothersome.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
<hug> --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Shall we continue Kim? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
<scratches head> We're going to have to do something I suppose. OTOH looks like Ryulong is somewhat overstressed. Hmm, what can we do short term that can at least meet Ryulong halfway. If this is just about whether there's a page called 'Ghost in the Shell (manga)' or not, it ends up being a fairly binary decision. What are other things you currently disagree on, or that you think you can agree on? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
We disagree on many things unfortunately, the basic matter is the organization and the franchise or topic level type of page. I am not sure why Ryulong is so opposed to the mere existance of a topic level page when they seem both justified and instrumental in laying out a collection of connected media. I've been willing to have a disamb or set index for such works, but Ryulong seems to strongly back the "original media first" as the incoming link to an ambiguous term. This seems to be another root of contention that has wide implications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this is an either-or kind of decision, and after pondering I still haven't been able to come up with anything resembling a Judgment of Solomon kind of deal. <scratches head>. I meean, I could propose to delete the article, I guess, but that would be a tad funny ;-).
I don't want to keep Ryulong dangling for ages either.
So we'll have to use Alexander the Great's method instead.
I propose the following: both of you write down a SHORT SUMMARY of the plan you would have with the page if it were up to you; (Just a short version of your plan, max 3 points, 1000 characters; no more responding to each other, no more arguing.)
After that I'll try to make the best unified plan out of those two that I can, probably leaning rather more heavily on the one than the other; and that will be the last word, and that's what will happen (even if it's not perfect).
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Well, almost the last word, because: A: Formally; The plan I come up with in the end cannot be binding. You will merely be strongly advised to follow it. B: if you really really hate the plan I come up with, you can always go to medcom or arbcom next, but do be aware that "appealing" beyond this point can sometimes backfire!

Chris's response

My plan for Ghost in the Shell is to turn it into a topic overview and outline the materials contained within. Lacking an appropriate parallel in the Anime and Manga topic, this will be the first topic overview that would ultimately hit GA or higher. Recently, the much contested Fullmetal Alchemist page was removed from GA status and the second example Sailor moon is likely to be stripped of its status on September 18th.

This would include small one paragraph sections on the releases splitting off to the topics and listing their related media as necessary for proper context. For instance, the Ghost in the Shell film being discussed before its sorta, but not really sequel Ghost in the Shell 2/Innocence. I would combine the details of what Stand Alone Complex is as part of an “extended universe” of Ghost in the Shell and cover its media, making the SAC page about the two anime seasons. For the novels and secondary and adapted works that do not meet standalone article requirements, I would mention them on this set index/topic overview without going into intricate detail. After the media is covered, I would make a section to list its principal creators of the media and give details about their roles, leading to their own biographical pages – examples would include Oshii and Kamiyama.

Several pages in the Ghost in the Shell section are reaching Good Article status, and it would be very helpful to also have a proper topic overview to do this, that is mirrored off the set index format of DISAMB. The manga, video game or the much more popular film should not be combined to the existing page or replace the set index/topic overview because it results in extra reading that serves no pressing purpose and does a disservice to readers, including the mobile users who access Wikipedia via smart phones. It needs to be kept as short and as functionally necessary to identify the material on its separate pages.

Lastly, the policy reasons for doing this are not under the flawed MOSAM which has often been claimed. The RFC said MOSAM is a manual of style and should not dictate or advise on notability, let alone push a local consensus about notability, over riding wider consensus about N/GNG. From here it goes to WP:SS as with World War II. Harry Potter is also a good example and is something that should be followed for Ghost in the Shell. While such articles are uncommon on Wikipedia, they serve to further the understanding of a complex subject and this is the root of my argument – the page must be accessible and comprehensible to the readers without bogging down in a singular topic. The discussion for this page should have revolved around handling the ambiguous incoming link or term and the best way to resolve this could be a reading of Disamb's broad concept – taking after the Nokia examples – they are all related and bear different names, but such a page brings context and meaning about the relationship, but could press the reader's patience and result in seeking information outside Wikipedia. Our readers are essential to Wikipedia's continued relevance and success, handling such a complex page so as to not alienate or inconvenience a sizable minority is in our best interests.

The Ghost in the Shell page is indeed a complex and unusual type of page, but the merger of two explanatory articles will go to establishing a stronger organization and reflection of the topic. The set index is a compromise of sorts, but it doesn't test the reader's patience like a broad concept page and should be a proper balance of the key information in an appropriate context. Wikipedia is not a macro or micro encyclopedia, it must strike a balance when possible and for the sake of our readers I am convinced that this is the best format for this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong's plan

My plan is simple. Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) are merged into a single article titled "Ghost in the Shell", which is primarily an article about the original manga serialization and graphic novels, with the "Media" section on the current article also incorporated. There are constantly arguments from Chris that the manga does not meet WP:PTOPIC status even though it is only one of 3 works of fiction with the English title "Ghost in the Shell" (without any additional descriptors). Ghost in the Shell (video game) definitely does not meet the requirements of being the primary topic, which leaves Ghost in the Shell (1995 film). It would make more sense for that page to be disambiguated as the film did not come until 5 years after the original manga ended its serialization for the scenes from which the film was adapted. These show that the manga should be the primary topic, as it is the entity by which "Ghost in the Shell" (again, without any additional descriptors) is best known for and has the longest relevance as the term. Nothing is lost in my proposal other than a URL. All information located on the current pages will be retained for the new page.

I really find that this "franchise article" or "top level article" concept does not work for anime and manga no matter how many times it is proposed, as the topic of the "franchise" never qualifies as being separately notable. I would also like to add that the only reason Fullmetal Alchemist was demoted from GA and Sailor Moon is in the process of being demoted is because of another editor with a similar mindset towards WP:MOSAM as ChrisGualtieri has demonstrated throughout my own and others' interactions with him, demanding that the pages be turned more into franchise pages and separate articles be made on the works of media that only differ in whether or not they were on paper or on TV.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1

Heh, both responses are considerably longer than 1000 characters :-/ . The reason I'm asking for 1000 characters is to try to see if you can condense down your plan yourselves. A lot of text above is dedicated to opinions, arguments, or other things, rather than to actual plans to do with actual edits.

Would you like to summarize your posts further yourselves, or do you want to risk me trying to summarize myself? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) because a "franchise article"/"topic level articles" is not notable for inclusion on its own in this case, and merge in a way such that all relevant information is kept and featured, as the manga meets WP:PTOPIC. How's that?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice and short, and pretty much what I expected it to be! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The manga page must not be merged to the franchise page because it does a great disservice to the readers. Consider the tree of life articles, with separate pages for the genus and species. I can find no benefit to merging as it requires lengthy scrolling and increased frustration for mobile or desktop browsing. The convenience of quickly and easily finding the desired information is absolutely more important than the existence of an extra article, and this is backed up by WP:LIST and WP:NOTPAPER. With over 30 entries in its scope, think of Ghost in the Shell as genus, it makes little sense to pick one entity out of all others that bear the same or similar name and origin for the purposes of having one less article. There is also no PTOPIC so the only logical choice is to have separate pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Chris, is it really still going on? GitS is just so obviously a media franchise. A pretty big one, consisting of a variety of media from different companies, and still strong after a decade or so since the last manga release by Shirow. --Niemti (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Media franchise" is something people make up to connect fictional works together. Ghost in the Shell was a manga that inspired two films, a video game, a television series with its own manga, films, and video games, and a separate film series. This concept of a "franchise" is harmful to Wikipedia, as it produces one short poor article that is a glorified disambiguation page at the behest of a page that is deemed independently notable, but independently notable from what? Chris, you constantly bring up that there are 30 entries when I think 25 of those are contained within the Stand Alone Complex series and they have no need to be mentioned on this page. Comparing this to biological taxonomy is bull. The tree analogy that someone used some point in this process fits better. The manga is the roots and trunk and its branches are the Oshii films, the video game, SAC, and ARISE. And last I checked on mobile browsing all sections are collapsed until selected (at least on iOS Safari and the dedicated app) and on desktop the table of contents gets people to where they want to be. You make all these excuses and link to all of these policies and guidelines you think are relevant but none of them hold up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_franchises Use outside Wikipedia (just random examples) by journalists: [8][9] by producers: [10][11] --Niemti (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
None of those use the term "media franchise" and all of those instances of "franchise" work better with "series" which implies sequential releases which Ghost in the Shell does not meet the requirements of.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet they use "franchise", boohoo. It's "media franchise" on Wikipedia only to differ from non-media franchises like McDonald's or al-Zawahiri's. --Niemti (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article on media franchise even states it is wrong to confuse it with a film series.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And a large number of the entries of Category:Media franchises don't seem to really fit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not describing Ghost in the Shell as a media franchise is the biggest generalization you can make, it actually insults the vastness of its mythos. It's as much of a franchise as NGE or dot hack. With multiple incarnations of the plot and varying degrees of spin-offs, you'd be a fool to say otherwise. ServiceGhost (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim of yours? All of it seems to be based on your own personal emotions regarding the work of fiction rather than the facts out there about it. NGE isn't a franchise either, as I certainly can't find anyone describing it as such. Dot Hack is the only thing that remotely comes close because there are multiple anime and video games all with the title "Dot Hack". With Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion you have the originating work of fiction and then adaptations from them. This means they should be treated as the trunk of the tree rather than just another branch among Stand Alone Complex and Arise or Girlfriend of Steel and Rebuild.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Save it for mediation. You blew off three sources and the dictionary definition. So please don't make another big brawl over something so petty. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've never been shown anything saying "Ghost in the Shell [is a] franchise" or "Neon Genesis Evangelion [is a] franchise". It's just an invention on Wikipedia to keep shit separate from each other for no reason that I can discern. It works for films. It works for video games. It does not work for manga and anime. And mediation is never going to happen because the community won't give Lucia an exception on her ban.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell/Archive_2&oldid=1136763933"