Wikipedia

Talk:Ghost in the Shell/Archive 4

< Talk:Ghost in the Shell
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 66.87.114.41 in topic Live-action film casting controversy
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Proposed merge with Ghost in the Shell (manga)

Latest comment: 10 years ago50 comments9 people in discussion
Result is not to merge. Frankly, this seems to be a fairly heated topic, but overall, the feeling seems to be that this is about more than the manga side of things. All I can urge everyone to do is to move on and help the encyclopedia, and please do not restart this pointless debate going back and forth for a long time to come; Article names are not the most important things in the short, long or in fact any term. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As I believe the mediation has overstepped its bounds and therefore negated its utility, I will instead raise this issue to the general editing public. It is very obvious that Ghost in the Shell the manga is notable. As are the films, the Stand Alone Complex television series, and the Arise films/OVAs. However, this does not confer notability onto the concept of a "franchise" that encompasses all of the topics. The content of this page (Ghost in the Shell) can easily be incorporated as a "media" section onto a page that says "Ghost in the Shell is a manga by Masamune Shirow", which in my opinion should be a page titled "Ghost in the Shell" and not one titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". The manga clearly passes the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it is the originator of all of the subseuqent related media, so therefore turning this into a disambiguation page (as Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) exists as) is not necessary. It most definitely holds the long term status as the item which is known as "Ghost in the Shell" around the world rather than any regional popularity of its offspring. As far as I can tell, en.wp is the only project that has this divide (although ja.wp has separate stub pages for 2.0 and 1.5), but that may be because someone may have not linked the "(manga)" page to any other projects. —Ryulong (琉竜) 08:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So rather than actually discussing our differences in mediation you are giving up and repeating when has been argued for six months? Look you, accepted it and I held off on getting this article to Good Article level because you disagreed with its format. PTOPIC does not mean "original media" and by all fairness the manga gets less views than other works carrying the same name and concept - there is no "primary topic". You did not want separate articles for the best selling manga, but there is a movie and a video game that bear the same name which have more views than this page. Your argument doesn't make any sense and your active limitation of the set index Ghost in the Shell page serves to only make readers go through a lot more information to arrive at likely points. Previously editors have stated that such layouts result in them leaving Wikipedia to find information elsewhere. With your primary topic argument disproved - can you please provide another merge rationale? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No. My argument is that the franchise or set index or whatever you wish to call this article and a separate page on the manga is not the best format by which to present the information on this subject and a merged article in the form that 99% of all other anime and manga pages has the information presented in is better. And that means the manga gets a focus on the page with this title. rather than just going "Nothing is the primary topic and therefore we should have either a franchise/set index page or a disambiguation page". And you simply keep bloating this page with information from the other articles that are best suited for them rather than this one. No one coming to this page gives a shit about the SAC Tachikoma mobile phone game only accessible in Japan or its vast print media. That's more important for discussion on the SAC articles. And it's certainly not important to state here how Shirow titled the chapters in the original manga, give excessive plot detail of the films and TV series, or describe the artbooks for the original manga only.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't want this to be a disambiguation page and you don't like this as a set article, but your merge rationale is rooted in mere appearance and organization of a single page to do everything? That is not a good reason and the other is invalid. You broke off mediation to try and merge the article after repeated attempts have failed and you stalled the process out and prevented it from becoming anything because of your "it came out first" argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If the format works for every other manga and anime article I don't see why the same doesn't work for this one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The format doesn't work well, now stick to the point - your preferred organization is not a valid merge criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It is your opinion that the format does not work, and that has been shown to not be shared by the majority of editors of anime and manga pages, such as when you tried to split Bleach (anime) off.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe what Knowledgekid is saying is that this information is just more beneficial in the manga article than it is in a separate franchise article.
Merge. I can definitely understand why one would believe that there is such an over-arching franchise, but the understanding only comes from the idea of practice, not understanding of the relationship of different entries. So we don't organize an article simply because that's what the reader is looking for. If they dont find exactly what their looking for, then its probably because their not well informed. This also means that we organize the information in whichever way informs the reader the best in what they are looking for. So it may not be best to create this index, if it doesn't give a clear idea of the connection between works. That said, having Ghost in the Shell manga as the main article informs readers that subsequent series such as "Arise" or "Stand Alone Complex" and films came in directly from the manga. Remember that everything we do in practice for WP:ANIME is for valid reasons. You had only one edge case, which was Dragon Ball/Dragon Ball Z scenario, in which still its a bit of a fog between the connection. It wont happen for every series.
Also note that each individual entry such as "Stand Alone Complex" and "Arise" have been completely separate individual works completely unrelated to each other in more ways than one. For example: Masamune Shirow had provided no role in the production of the films. He played a very minor role in Stand Alone Complex, but most of the credit of the development and original ideas came from Kamiyama. And Arise is again, a new director with new production team that kamiyama isn't apart of and neither is masamune shirow nor oshii. There's no proof of these being an interconnected project/initiative nor are they all related to one another except for the original manga.
Therefore, having the article focus on the manga is much more informative than a separate franchise article in which puts all entries indiscriminately. And also there's no concrete information that there is a franchise officially. ON a incredibly minor (yet relevant) note: All series are based off the original manga. Both Stand Alone Complex (yet alternate telling) have all referenced stories from the original manga and the same cast not only from the original manga, but from subsequent manga such as 2 and 1.5. The film used the main story lines of the original manga. So it's not like it will be difficult to decipher. The "puppeteer/puppet master" storyline has been used overall, not only in animated film but also planned for live action (which obviously fell through). Basically the manga can easily encompass all 3 alternate versions/stories. It just takes enough research and understanding of the series to know that its not a good idea to provide this "index" or "franchise" article.Lucia Black (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Stop placing mere rhetoric and answer for WP:DISAMB and WP:SS; given the ambiguity something is clearly required and I'm running out of patience because I want the manga at GA or FA by March. We've already gone through this merge issue like 4 times for this one page and not once in 7 months has either of you made a policy backed case for why its merge is better. Shiroi's advice was great and I am inclined to agree with it. If you want it to be clear and simple, that is what you do, and both policy and common sense goes straight to the heart of the matter on why the manga page absolutely and positively must not be merged in. We barely have one third of the actual content on that page and its because of Ryulong's repeated removals and the constant holding that this page is undeveloped. I'm not going to go in circles endlessly with the two of you and re-re-re-re-re-re-argue your rhetoric. Just because Ryulong hates anything besides the bare minimum of coverage does not mean his actions improve Wikipedia. Of course we can't agree on anything when Ryulong won't discuss or entertain any disagreement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement that people need to throw acronyms and abbreviations at you if we disagree with the decisions you made. The manga is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It came first. Without it none of the other media would exist. I do not see why the popularity of the derivative works denies this article primary topic status. The discussion of the manga should solely be located at the article with this title, and the article should also include WP:SS descriptions of the other media. Franchise pages do not work for anime and manga. They are not codified in any policy. There is no reason for such a split, or for you to flood this article with WP:UNDUE coverage of Stand Alone Complex simply because there are a billion things with the Stand Alone Complex trademark on them. Those are my arguments. Those are based in policy. And I find your restoration of Bleach (anime) to be an extreme violation of WP:POINT.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
PTOPIC is not "first out", it is for overwhelming popular usage which the manga does not meet. The film is much more popular and it shares the same exact name, and the video game also does. UNDUE is viewpoint, not coverage, but as there is a lot more in the SAC universe, then it is justified to cover what is in it. Both arguments really don't hold up to scrutiny, but that's okay. I want this page as a disambiguation type - the only thing I absolutely want is some way to direct readers to the correct media or a brief overview of the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
No, PTOPIC is for lasting relevance.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge The series is notable for things other than just the manga. The article clearly states that some of the television series, films, and video games have stories "independent from the original manga". So this isn't just about the manga and things based on it. The series should thus get its own separate article. Enough valid content to fit it. Dream Focus 13:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion was already had a few months back. [1] The same person shouldn't be starting up the same argument yet again. Dream Focus 13:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    It was unmerged and then we went through a fruitless attempt at mediation because no one can do shit if disputes keep popping up. And the manga should be the focus of the central article on the subject. Not a "franchise page".—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Still opposing and yes, it is ridicalous that Bleach (anime) redirects to Bleach (manga) - while anime FILMS have separate articles. --Niemti (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. But make that comment at Talk:Bleach (anime). ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
God damn it Chris no we are not doing that, again. You were already told off about it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
These are still arguments based off reasons against WP:ANIME central way of editing. So it seems WP:POINTY to contest this and attempt to use this as an example for the others. regardless, objectively the manga has every reason to be primary topic. Chris, it doesn't really matter which version is more popular because each one was done individually that still directly related to the original....let's look at for example: The Little Mermaid original story was completely different from the Disney version, yet despite the original Disney version being more popular and more influential to make more children modified versions of the story, it still remains as primary topic. And because it's the original, it makes things easier to organize too. And some may be looking for the disney version, but this format informs better.Lucia Black (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Films have different plot and are not direct adaptions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't believe the anime is a direct adaption of the manga and see them as separate entities as the anime and manga spin off their own media. I would relate the Ghost in the Shell series to Gundam. Then again, I could be wrong about the plot, plus the fact there might not be enough information to sustain a "franchise" article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the dispute, I'd gladly settle for a set index or disambiguation as covered in DISAMB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess disambiguation would be the best. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is just as bad at the "Ghost in the Shell" title particularly when we already have one. There is no reason for a "set index page". The main page should be about a main topic. GITS is not comparable to Gundam which has had dozens more versions of itself. Whether or not one thing is an adaptation of the other is not the issue here. The fact is that the "set index" concept or "franchise page" concept is not useful for such a small number of pieces of media. This page should be about the manga, with summary style descriptions of the movies, the video game, SAC, and Arise, just like any other anime and manga page would be like.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@DragonZero:: I'm merely pointing out that the most recognized (popular) version is not reason enough to consider making an "index/franchise" like article, and the fact that you mention that proves my point further to use Stand Alone Complex/film series being more popular null and void as they are substantially different from the original (on more or less than the other). And i also disagree with making a disambiguation page. The point is that all spin offs or adaptations are directly linked to the manga. Giving the manga even more lasting status.

This series is not like Gundam. There's no proof that Ghost in the Shell (as a whole) is a metaseries. After all, all of the series revolves around the original manga (film = direct/loose adaptation. TV series = Alternate telling but still sharing most of the elements of the original. OVA series = Prequel) not originally (or proven to ever be) owned by Production I.G. If you read my first comment, you can better understand what Ghost in the Shell as a whole is and why keeping the manga as primary topic would benefit it well.

I may be repeating myself, but like i said, all these are directly connected to the manga. So all this information such as a film/stand alone complex/arise series is just as relevant in the manga article just as it is if it was a franchise. Making it unnecessary for both disambiguation/franchise article. It's not like each new series is another "entry" in the overall series. After all, each one is done individually yet connected to the original manga. The perfect examples are Fullmetal Alchemist, Rozen Maiden, Blood: The Last Vampire (two of which are GAs).Lucia Black (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break

  • Seems like Lucia has a problem and has decided upon herself to carry out the merge despite other people having opposed the merge and resulting in no consensus. Whether or not the page BECOMES the disamb is another matter, but this needs to remain during the RFC and arguments on DISAMB including its most recent discussion are in favor of a disamb taking over this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It is out of my hands at this point in the matter! Niemti, Dream Focus, and Dragon Zero opposed the merge and everything is pointing to a DISAMB given that all three of the articles are likely going to be at GAN or be GAs in short order. I wanted the conflict over, but that doesn't mean the other people's comments and arguments can be pushed aside. The ship sailed on that idea awhile ago and the evolution of the matter has shown a clear and true "compromise". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You can simply inform the matter at hand, you know better than to "allow" an editor to merge it. Because right now, it looks like WP:GAME because you suddenly act like you forgot about such event and then turning that to promote me acting on my own. If it was "out of your hands" you could've not told Ryulong that you gave him permission to merge the articles. And right now, we simply don't have enough in this article to claim it will make it to GA, because there's still no verification of an individual franchise page. And WP:DISAMB doesn't exactly help your case because you believe all 3 articles will make it at GA, that's not how it works. Unless you're "attempting" to GAN this "franchise" article into making it seem like it is notable, and it is a subject, i'm not sure you can without some form of "reception" that covers the series as a whole by providing sources that cover the series as a whole. Making claims of GA wont work....we still have to decide if this will be merged or not.Lucia Black (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read my post again and keep in mind that two are at GAN and the merge target is going to be GAN and lastly this is heavily leaning to be a disamb. Further baseless accusations will be met with total silence and subsequent "logging". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You gave ryulong permission to merge, i asked ryulong if he would allow me to do it for him, in which he agreed. And i'm sure you have his talkpage in watchlist to know that i indeed asked. But since you gave permission to ryulong to merge it, which meant you were content with the merge (at least at the time). So right now (literally 3 posts before) you're alerting the editors of me "acting on my own" when this was something you're directly involved. It is not a "baseless accusation".

I understand the current situation wont allow it but considering you're vote at the time was to allow it, that was 4/3. But this is not leaning toward disamb and it wont be anytime soon. And at the moment, the GAN related to franchise/film can't begin until after everything has been decided. So it can't be promoted to GA, if there's still issues that are being discussed, such as whether it should be merged. If so, then the article will fail for not meeting toward stability. Something that almost costed the GA status for Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days.Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with you. Stop trying to fail another page's GA unrelated to this one. Do not try an enforce your preferred version when there is no consensus to do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

THats just the facts Chris. You can't game the system by attempting to GA something to oversee a discussion. And i'm not enforcing anything. this is whats what.Lucia Black (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC) And i'm not trying to fail any GA. this isn't about the film, this is mainly about the manga/franchise.Lucia Black (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. You don't understand... I just went ahead and did what was necessary and made it go to the disambiguation. Problem solved. Moving on... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you had no consensus for that, and renaming, and moving is just as important to gain consensus first. So i don't know why you feel entitled to do what you want, and then give grief for others that do it much less often than you. And what exactly does it solve? This solves "your" problems, not the ones who voted for merge.Lucia Black (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri this was a terrible fucking idea. There was no consensus to do this. This is in no way what any of the parties wanted. And now you've just made everything more difficult for everyone else. I am sick and tired of this. You asked me not to do a new merge discussion while the RFC was going at Bleach (anime) and you go ahead and do this shit instead? This is bullshit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And you know hat Dream Focus, ChrisGualtieri explicitly said this should happen before the onset of the RFC. So it's just him renegging because I never went ahead with it due to real life commitments.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

He didn't mention the Ghost in the Shell series at all there. Nor does that change the fact that others opposed the merge. Dream Focus 09:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"Do what you wish with the GITS [Ghost in the Shell] matter.".—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Single Disamb to overtake franchise page

Should the Ghost in the Shell page redirect to Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) under the reading from WP:DISAMB? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It's still a tie to 3 editors support, 3 editors oppose. and dragonzero counts as neutral due to attempting to compromise. but even then, the compromise doesn't really solve anything unless one attempting to claim primary topic. Which isn't a relevant issue to the opposing side. so even if hypothetically the Ghost in the shell becomes the disambiguation page, the "franchise" page and the manga page would still be in question. So far every spin-off and alternate series is based on the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No. The manga should be the primary topic located at the title "Ghost in the Shell". Making the disambiguation page the target of "Ghost in the Shell" is not the compromise I am seeking. Seeing as you requested that I not begin a merge discussion at Bleach (anime) while the RFC is ongoing, you should not be making such a discussion concerning what to do with this page, either.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The summary misses the philosophical side of the movie

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The movie extensively treats themes of consciousness, and how it relates to the convergence of man and machine. I believe it should be in the summary, because it is what sets Ghost in The Shell apart from conventional action anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.134.61 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is only meant to have a minor summarization of the film rather than delve into its philosophical implications.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Side media details

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I can't believe that when I leave this article it just goes the way ChrisGualtieri wants it, having extensive discussions on content peripheral to the subject at hand in the "media" section. Information on the Stand Alone Complex material should be on the Stand Alone Complex article, rather than peppered through this one. There is no need to have such extensive detail on the video games or the novels here. I've removed this content, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Apologies, undid wrong page. Remind me not to attempt to use the visual editor ever again. Sigh. Suffice to say no consensus before. 'No need' is not a good enough argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's excessive detail that exactly duplicates the content on the side media that is featured on Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. On this article, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of Ghost in the Shell as a whole to provide all of this information on all of this side media of a spin off. This was a constant point of contention between myself and ChrisGualtieri during our original dispute on this page, and because I had not contributed to the article in such a long time, he felt the need to add it, knowing that I had raised my concerns about it in the past. This page should only provide a succinct summary of the spin-off media, and the novels which do not have their own articles do not meet that criteria. If people want to know more about the novels and the manga and the five video games released under the "Stand Alone Complex" media umbrella, then that's what the other article is for. ChrisGualtieri had no consensus to expand the article to contain all of this content on spinoffs of spinoffs of spinoffs during our dispute last year and my uninvolvement with this particular page because I thought things had settled down does not suffice for him to add the content back. It's superfluous. It's irrelevant to the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE set up to this page. Again, he never had consensus to add it in the first place because he was fully aware of my opposition, and I had attempted to further summarize the extensive discussion of the side media on this page multiple times because Chris just kept adding more unnecessary discussion of media that is so peripheral to the discussion of the topic that it is practically in the blind spot.
    The version you restored also has so many formatting errors regarding the implimentation of the {{nihongo}} templates. If just {{nihongo}} is used, the first parameter is always English. The placement of the kanji name of the real world Niihama City in this parameter is incorrect, which is why I changed it to {{nihongo2}} which is pretty much the same as {{lang|ja}}.
    My edits also restructure the discussion of the video games, most of which regard the Stand Alone Complex story, to be minimal listing under the video games header with more details provided on the Stand Alone Complex page, rather than associating them with the ancient PS1 video game. If it's not about "Ghost in the Shell" as a whole but rather one of the offshoots, then it shouldn't be discussed in such detail on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    I mean, just look at what I removed here (which can be found verbatim at Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Novels and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Manga) and here (again, at Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games). This is content forking plain and simple.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have slightly expanded what I had greatly abbreviated prior. Now, all video games that are just Stand Alone Complex are discussed under the Stand Alone Complex header, rather than under the video games header, which is just dedicated to the PS1 game. The information on the novels and manga from SAC are limited to just titles rather than duplicating the content on the other article. Anything more than this is ultimately too detailed to fit in with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, not to mention it is on the edge of WP:NOTIINFO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If this article is to continue to exist

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If the article will continue to exist, i believe that it should be organized appropriately by each individual series. Having a "video game" section for only one video game is not necessary as its based off the manga's continuity (intentionally separate from that of the film's). the rest are series of their own. Mamoru Oshii's Films, Kenji Kamiyama's Stand Alone Complex, and the recent Kise's Arise series. Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to make a separate section for this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
if you read your own comments you would know why i'm making this thread in the first place. Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding video game inclusion

Latest comment: 10 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Here Ryūlóng can explain why he thinks it's not clear the game has nothing to do with the film whatsoever --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Niemti. This is for you to argue for the video game not having a separate section. This has nothing to do with canon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Because the game is an adapatation of the manga, doh. Is that all you had to say? Cool, bye. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Every single god damn piece of Ghost in the Shell media is an adaptation of the manga.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
And here Ryūlóng will explain why he thinks the game has anything to do with what he called "the 90s movies" (whatever he meant), and will give reliable sources to back his claim: --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you two please have a civil conversation over this. SNAAAAKE!! you wish to make changes, under BRD you've made changes, they were reverted now it's time to discuss. Please discuss civilly what you wish to change and your reasoning behind it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The video game is not an adaptation of the manga, however it is indeed a spin-off of the manga. The video game really just tells a side-story completely original. however the developers have stated that the game is indeed a spin-off of the manga rather than the film. I don't think the video game should have its own section because its still complimentary media. It should be put into the original manga section in similar fashion of how Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex has video games mentioned in.
If an entire "franchise" article has to exist, then it has to be organized by series, and the video game is indeed a spin-off of the adaptation. Lucia Black (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Lucia this makes no sense. You say the video game is separate but also not separate at the same time. Which is it? Because every single piece of media described on this page can be considered an adaptation or spin-off of the original manga. Does tnat mean everything gets shoehorned into the "original manga" header too? It's easier to have a separate section for the PS1 video game because it is separate because before 2002 there was no franchise to speak of.
The only reason this is so damn confusing because the manga had to be given its own separate artcle from all other pieces of media despite there being too much overlap in the discussion of the manga itself and a franchise. We still need to get rid of this division and make this a page about the manga and its various other media adaptations/retellings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying the game is separate, i'm saying the game isn't canon or a direct adaptation. Its a "spin-off". In the Stand Alone Complex series, there are manga, novels, and video games. Only the manga are direct adaptations, the rest are spin-offs with their own storyline that have not been confirmed canon.
The Ghost in the Shell video game has been confirmed to being based on the manga by the developers. But its not a direct adaptation because its mostly serving as a gaiden. With that said, the video game is part of the Original manga series. Lucia Black (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
But it's a video game based on the manga just as much as the first movie is based on the manga is it not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The film originally began as just another adaptation, but now because of "Innocence" its now an established series of its own (plus the novels). However, the video game released after the film and establishes that it is more based on the manga rather than of the film, so the video game itself treats the film as a separate entity. I suppose there are grey areas. If it wasn't for "Innocence", the film and the video game would've been treated equally as part of the original series. Lucia Black (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
All this is really telling me is that we need to get rid of the division between the manga and franchise articles, again. There's no reason this video game should not be treated separately amongst the various media based on the franchise which is just really the manga and its spun-off media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that the developers of the video game itself confirm it falls in the continuity of the manga over the film. Understand that the films, Stand Alone Complex series, and Arise series are re-imagines of the original media, however the video game does exactly what the other video games have been doing for their respected series, serving as gaidens to fit within a specific continuity. Especially since the game came out after the original film. The term "spin-off" is wide, but lets see it in terms of "complimentary media" and "separate entity". the video game is meant to compliment the manga, but the films, Stand Alone Complex series, and Arise series are not designed to compliment the original manga, they are designed to being separate entities of their own (which is why we need the original manga as the main page, to further show this relationship between specific media)

The only way it should be treated equally to the rest of the series is if it reaches the same level of the others, such as becoming an alternate plot that no longer fits the original manga and receiving adaptations/spin-offs of its own. But again, the game is designed the same way the Stand Alone Complex games are designed for the Stand Alone Complex series. It is designed to fit into that continuity, and because the video game was released "after" the film, the video game intentionally treats itself as part of the manga over the film. Lucia Black (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

How this falls into the canon of things is unimportant. What is important is how we format the article to show that theres a manga, a video game, and a couple of films, and then the two later anime series.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not calling it canon (when i say falling into a continuity, it doesn't confirm that where it falls is "canon"), and i know canon is irrelevant, but it was originally brought up by you, so the one time i brought it up was to clarify. If hypothetically we were to merge the manga back, the video game would fall into related media, alternate series would be that of the films, Stand Alone Complex, and Arise series. Lucia Black (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, a "media" section would be identical to what's on the page now, but without the manga being separate as it is. The old video game gets its own tiny section like the rest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Then no merger is what i'm going to say. The key difference between video game and the rest is that the others are their own individual series. Although the video game is a GA article, it doesn't mean its equal to the rest in terms of relationship. I see you're ignoring key points that are being brought out. The video game is a gaiden to the manga, unlike the other series that are re-imagines. Lucia Black (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop basing this garbage on what their stories are about. What matters is that there was a video game based on the manga just like there were movies based on the manga, a TV series based on the manga, and an OVA series based on the manga. The fact that the films, TV series, and OVAs have their own continuities that are different from the manga means nothing in regards to discussion of the video game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Remember that the original manga is a series of its own that will gain its own specific media. But that doesn't mean all media is based off the manga the same way. When i'm saying they are re-imagines, that basically means that they are more closer to "reboots". So although their based off the original, their not all part of the original in the same way that the video game is. And it matters if you choose to compare them to the rest. So long as you keep saying they are exactly the same thing, i will continue to share the differences.
Keep in mind, whether you define the video game spin-off the same as the alternate series, we can't divide it all into media because certain sections will have multiple media, such as Stand Alone Complex and Arise. I much rather have a franchise article helping divide it by series if it means less confusion by "media". because the series is most definitely "not" defined by media. Lucia Black (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Stand Alone Complex is a TV series with its own side media. Arise is an OVA/film series with its own side media. None of that has to be discussed on this page in any extensive detail.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Like i said, if you choose to state that they are similar, i will continue to state why they are different. My main point is that the video game is indeed part of the original manga series as a spin-off media while the rest are Spin-off "series". SO if we're not going to discuss about the other media, then at least i vote that the video game be merged into the original manga series section. Lucia Black (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that they should be discussed in this article separately because they are different forms of media. Just because it's more based on the manga does not mean that it should not have its own section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Although there are different forms of media, organized completely differently. The video game isn't just closer to the manga, its established as part of the manga, while the others don't establish that. Lucia Black (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It's connection isn't important. It's a separate form of media just as all the others are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Then we should remove any division of Stand Alone Complex, or Arise. and again, will defeat the purpose of even having a series section. all or nothing is what i'm saying. We either divide the article completely into media regardless of what series it falls into, or we divide it into Series. And quite frankly i'm leaning toward series. Lucia Black (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a series section. Stand Alone Complex is a TV series, a separate form of media. Arise is a direct-to-video (I think) film series, another form of media. They just have a subtitle to know them by. The section is about media. Not separate storylines.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Which contain side media of their own, and common sense dictates organizing the article by series because multiple subseries have more than one media in common. the fact that you added a mention of Stand Alone Complex video games just to make that section more relevant just destroys the purpose of your previous argument. I find it rather advantagous. its all or nothing, like i said. either we include all the media unilaterally, or we divide it by series even if it means the original video game doesn't get a section of its own. sacrifice one or the other. Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Live-action film casting controversy

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article fails to mention the backlash the film has received for casting ScarJo in the lead role of the live-action movie adaptation. The movie may not even be made with her in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.114.41 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why this article can't be organized universally as "media"

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

First off, theres too much media interconnecting eachother. its far too difficult to do so. Even if we were to merge the manga back, we would still have to organize it differently. There would have to be a "related media" and "alternate series" sections. and if you can't agree to those, we might aswell keep this article. Lucia Black (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is how every other god damn article on anime and manga is set up. It's described by the released media. The manga, the video game based directly on the manga, the two Ishii films, the SAC TV series and its related media, and the ARISE films/OVAs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, like we've said before in previous discussions: Ghost in the Shell isn't like other series. The fact that each individual series of its own is notable on its own, with their own respected media, makes it difficult to organize it the way you think would fit all. Its not one size fits all. And even then, people such as User:DragonZero have been making edits of their own to get rid of it. Not to say he's completely right, but there is room to deviate from the original. Where have you been in WP:ANIME the past few months? this is a hot issue. You can't just say "all articles follow this method". of course they do, when appropriate. Lucia Black (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing that makes this different from any other anime. Stop making exceptions. We should not be basing the divisions of this article on interpretations of canon. It should be the method that the things were released. The manga, the films, the video games, the TV series, and the OVAs. Just because it's easy to divide them into canons does not mean we should here. You don't have consensus for your proposed change. Leave this be until a third opinion agrees with you because the way things are now are a result of the god damn year of discussion that you, I, and Chris had together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Before this discussion continues, i ask for an agreement to never use the word "canon" ever in this discussion. I don't want my points to be dismissed just because you're choosing to look at it with the wrong point of view. And further misunderstanding could lead to others follow the same trend...For the billionth time, this is "NOT" about canon. Canon is about what is confirmed to be "true" within a series. Which despite can be verified at times, isn't the key issue. If canon was really the point i wanted to make, i would say whether the "novels" or the "video games" were canon or not. I would of wanted to organize it in a much more horrendous way.
However what does matter is how to organize the information in a way that best helps the reader understand. You want to know what makes Ghost in the Shell different? The fact that it is actually organized by limited ammount of series in the real-world. Unlike Gundam, where each new entry is equal to the last to the point that can't be organized in such a fashion, Ghost in the Shell is the few that can. Trying to organize it by type of media universally, would either be inconsistent and redundant (like what you're trying to do by salvaging the video game section yet other sections also mentioning their own video games) or too universal to even be helpful to the readers, which was attempted in the past.
You're still trying to get your way, but you aren't even trying to do things right. Look at what you're doing? In this revision of yours, you are attempting to organize it universally by the type of media, but if we truly needed to organize it that way, we would not add the name next to it. The names are there for a reason, and its to keep info like manga spin-offs and novel spin-offs separate that aren't related to the respected series. That's why it was organized the way it was then. It was originally done by series. So you know "series" to a degree plays a part. You just not willing to accept its what helps explain the series to others.
More reasons why its not like any other series: The video game is confirmed to be part of the original manga series. This is an established division by reliable sources, there is no "interpretation" needed. This wouldn't be a problem if the other media didn't have respected media of their own. But the fact that they do shows that they are a series of their own. Unlike most series, these are notable and get their own article, and not only that but they are noted for being their own series separate from the original media. And normally when that happens in anime/manga, the original media is not notable enough to stand alone separately from the more well-known lose adaptation (ex. Blue Submarine No. 6). But that's not the case, the Original manga is plenty notable to stand alone in its own article.
If the manga were to be merged, there would have to be "Alternate series/adaptations" and "Related media". The Related media section would hold media confirmed to be directly part of the manga series, such as companion books and the video game spin-off. Alternate series/adaptations would be used to list series like the film series, Stand Alone Complex series, and Arise. This is not much of a stretch at all, they have their own respected media, they have their own articles. Organizing it by series "helps" readers. WP:ANIME doesn't have to say they accept other ways to organize media because they have accepted other ways. Lucia Black (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever god damn word you want to use then that's the word that I disagree with formatting the article. This is the media of the Ghost in the Shell franchise which was a manga, a video game, two related movies, two related television series and a made for TV movie with several other submedia, and an OVA series. That is how we should format this page. Not combine things based on their continuities.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ANd the TV series obtained OVAs, manga, novel, and video game adaptations of their own. The films has also received novels of their own, and the OVA series also has a manga adaptation of their own. YOu want to do it all unilaterally for this article, you're going to have to oranize it by "Manga, Films, TV series, and OVA". Which i promise you will not as clean as you expect.

Their is a reason why you didn't remove the names from the media, and its because you know its to help organize the article the way i intended, but in the way you feel comfortable reading it as. But the problem is still "redundancy". We dont need a "video games" section, just because you want it, it contradicts your edit before when you removed the other games.

Theres too much Cross-media. al their respected articles are organized universally by type of media, but they are covering a single series. This article isn't. Lucia Black (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "cross media" or whatever you're calling it. Spin-off stuff gets its own coverage within the other spin offs. Just because the tv show version has its own separate manga does not mean that we have to discuss that manga with all of the other manga. It gets discussed as an aspect of the tv show.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Then by default, the video game should be merged with the original manga. and organize it by series. Lucia Black (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
no, because by default everything is just an extension of the original manga in some form.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The different versions all have the same characters and general setting don't they? They all come from the same writer? One manga seems to have ended right before the next one started, just retelling things differently but still the same theme. Marvel and DC comics have their stories totally redone all the time. They stop one long running series, and then start its numbering over again with a new writer even, or cancel it for years then restart it again totally different. But we don't sort the cartoons, video games, and whatnot separately based on what comic book time period they are based on. Dream Focus 20:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No they don't all have the same writer or the same Director. The films are done by Mamoru Oshii, the SAC series is done by Kenji Kamiayama, the Arise series is done by Kazuchika Kise. And i wouldn't compare it too easily to Marvel and DC as they are constantly redoing the plot of their own stories, and none of their stories are organized. its completely different in GITS case as its only a small handful that is clearly defined by reliable sources.

Although everything is an extension of the manga in "some" form, that doesn't mean that all the forms are the same. The video game spin-off (confirmed to being part of the original manga's continuation) isn't equal to the Stand Alone Complex series that garnered its own media. Lucia Black (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing different between what you want and how things were was no separate section for the ps1 game and I don't see why it has to be that way. This format lists all the different media, with an obvious emphasis placed on how the stand alone complex stuff and the arise stuff has its own set of separate media that we discuss on their own article. Still, all these problems would be solved if we didn't have that damn separate page on the manga.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And the original manga has its own "stuff" aswell which happens to include the video game. That's what you're choosing to ignore. you can't use that analogy half-way by applying it to SAC, and Arise, and NOT apply it to the original manga. I refuse to support a single page if you want to organize everything too universally, there's a clear division. And again, these are by sources. Especially for the video game. Lucia Black (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Everything is an adaptation of the manga FFS. Now everything is divided by media including the SAC games.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You're only copromising the article further, and you don't even care about it. Lucia Black (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not too long ago, you were against such organization. Now you're for it? And for what reason? Only so that the video game gets its own section. You had no consensus for it. and i'm going back to my revision because its the most sensible. you are not even trying to provide a reason why it should be organized the way it is.

No more distractions. Answer me this: What does the previous rendition do that the other doesn't? Lucia Black (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because I want to have no separate article on the manga does not mean that this article should not be formatted as it stands.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I see Lucia's version as an improvement as it increases accessibility to a general reader. It also has more consistent subheadings, since the current revision's video game subheading is out of place here. I didn't read through most of this discussion but This is how every other god damn article on anime and manga is set up. isn't a good reason on why the article's structure is legit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason to remove the video game sub-heading from the article is all. Just because two of the other subheadings have other media within them (which we cover on another article) does not mean that the manga and video game, which allegedly take place in the same continuity should also be listed together. There is such a massive gap between the release of the manga and the video game adaptation that they don't really count as an entity together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Arise Information

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"The year 2013 saw the start of the Ghost in the Shell: Arise film series with the release of the first two episodes. The third episode of the four-part series is set to be released on June 28, 2014."

It seems as though the last edit to this was prior to the release of Borders 3 and Border 4 this year (2014). However, I don't feel comfortable enough to make changes since I'm unsure of the actual release dates (besides what is written in the wiki) or how to correctly update that sentence. Or does it even need to be there, anymore?

"[..]with the release of the first two episodes while 2014 concluded the series with the release of the two final episodes." Perhaps?--172.15.5.84 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've performed a fix. You can take a look again to see if it's better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Drastically more appropriate (and up to date), but still doesn't feel "quite right". However, I can't really put my finger on why that is, so it seems fine for now. Thanks for the fix! --172.15.5.84 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell/Archive_4&oldid=1260094785"