Jump to content

Talk:Ghost in the Shell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Major Kusanagi's name

Is Major Kusanagi's name related to the sword Kusanagi of Japanese mythology? I know so little of Japanese culture that I can't even tell if they're pronounced the same. --Andrew 05:15, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

They are pronounced the same but I don't know about any connection. As a matter of fact, Kusanagi is one of somehow common names in Japan. Kusanagi Tsuyoshi is for example a famous actor and singer. -- Taku 05:19, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

So it could be a coincidence, then. But somehow with this author I wonder; after all, he named himself after a sword and he writes page after page of footnote. Thanks, though, I didn't know it was a common name. --Andrew 10:20, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

the sword

you can compare the kanji

According to Japanese mythology the Kusanagi Sword was one of the treasures possessed by the imperial family of Japan. It is said that the warrior who brandished it could beat a whole army. --Neuromancien 00:14, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

http://www.tvave.com/CartoonNetwork-G/Ghost_in_the_Shell.php

This website has large portions of this article on it without any sources citing Wikipedia. Isn't that against Wikipedia policy? MisterCheese 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen things like this before. There are at least 2 sites I know of that reproduced the Pigs Is Pigs (1937) article I originally created here a year ago. -- Jason Palpatine 09:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What do we do about it though? I'm a bit reluctant to send an e-mail like it says to do in case of this. MisterCheese 18:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

soundtrack

Well, it's a classical soundtrack, so that's not exactly everyday, I'm sure people notice that :-P You can't remove a bit of information just because you happen not to have noticed yourself of course. What you can do perhaps is rephrase and add "the soundtrack was in a classical style, and written by ..." etc. But really, NPOVing needn't be taken to extremes. :) Kim Bruning 07:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The information was duplicated below in the section on the anime; I didn't feel it needed to be in both spots, but will leave it. -- Ian Maxwell 16:16, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Philosophy

The article states that people in Gits have scientifically verified the existance of the soul. I question this. It seems to me that the term Ghost is always used rather vaguely. Is it possible that "Ghost" is a physical phenominum that they have named "ghost"?

jm: Ghost vs. Soul -- This is problematic in a translated work. I'll try to identify the key passages, and have a japanese friend of mine take a look at the original to see if my interpretation of the translation matches.

For example, a Ghost could be a neural network or digital simulation running a certain way? This would account for a "ghost hack", the detection of the "ghost" in the puppet master, and the fact that the Tachikomas in Stand Alone live but do not have a "Ghost"

By the end of Stand Alone's first season, doesn't Motoko state that the Tachikomas have begun to develop ghosts, or some sort of collective conscience? Kawa 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think ghost refers to the consciousness created by the neural network, not the neural network itself. Neural network is neural network. Computer can be a neural network too. It's a mystery still at this age, how our consciousness "occurs". Anyway in the book and the anime, the term is not well-defined so we don't really know what it is... In a way, ghost refers to the mystery of mind. Don't you ever wonder why you're yourself? --Nc622 16:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

jm: That was the central revelation of the manga: that the puppet master was the first AI to to have a ghost/soul -- making him a living organism, rather than just an elaborate construct.

Though its hard to grasp the matter, I think that the intention of the Stand Along Complex writers is to allow for the Ghost to be a completly physical phenominum with related spiritual beliefs. jm: I agree. Shirow is deliberately ambiguous. In other words, when they say Ghost, they mean both physical/ and or spiritual. They mean, potentially, more than 1 thing at the same time. I found a reference to this once on the Internet, I can search for this latter if anyone wants.

Question: Do we know Motoko's camuflage influenced the creation of real life ones, or is it cooincidence?68.42.24.89 22:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GiTS is explicitly referenced by the scientists who made the "camouflage" (it's actually just a clever projector, and only works for 1 point of view, but still ;-) ). Kim Bruning 08:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to meet you guys. About the term ghost, it was inspired by Arthur Koestler's book The Ghost in the Machine [1]. Here's a Japanese page; it says Shirow said he got the term from the book. [2] The concept of ghost was first used by a British philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, in his paper mocking the paradox of spirit-matter dualism. Shouldn't we add this to the text? --Nc622 18:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent research. If you'd like to add that to the text just go ahead and do so. If it isn't perfect it'll be cleaned up quick enough! ;-) Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 23:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Kim. I'm working on the addition but it doesn't fit right after the current paragraph. I think the definition of "ghost" should be clarified first.--Nc622 16:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about:
Make a link to Ghost (Gilbert Ryle) ("redlink it"), and pretend it already existed. You can fill in the new article later :-)
Kim Bruning 18:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I kinda changed the paragraph to fit with mine. Didn't change the whole thing. There is a link to Gilbert Ryle, although it doesn't mention about ghost. Umm.. I don't think the addition is good enough; I believe it's got some useful material but the explanation needs rephrasing or improvement. --Nc622 14:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent start! :-) Kim Bruning 14:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In English we have several words for the loose collection of concepts clustered around the self. We make a stark divide between the MIND, the rational, abstract part of us with which we think, and the SOUL, a more metaphysical life essence with religious associations.

This distinction is does not continue across language barriers. In German, the word GEIST (ghost) can be used interchangeably for either of these concepts, and to Germans, the distinction made in English can seem somewhat unnatural.

Perhaps Koestler's term draws on the extension of the German term. He was after all, famously, a multi-linguist. This term GEIST, is probably more suitably vague than any of our words, MIND or SOUL, and it is probably the best assessment of the extension of the word GHOST in its usage in Ghost in the Shell.

An etymology of the term might be appropriate too. There is a lineage of terms, all of which feed into the terms we have today. In ancient greek we have NOUS (intellect or reason or mind, and, for plato, the rational part of the soul) and PSYCHE (animating breath, which is used often for a soul, or enduring essential spirit).In Latin, these two distinct concepts were covered by one word: MENS, and this word is used by Saint Augustine in his meditations, which is, incidentally, the work from which is drawn the uncited quote at the end of Ghost in the Shell. "When I was a child..."

With reference to the suggestion that Hegel's GEIST might be connected: Hegel's use of the term GEIST is different from the German vernacular usage. For Hegel, all of reality is GEIST, the word comes to represent the religious, artistic and philosophical reality of an entire culture, which evolves in stages. Commonly, GEIST, in Hegel's work, is translated as UNIVERSAL MIND, and stands for a collective consiousness, running through these three spheres of religion, art and philosophy. For Hegel, GEIST is everything, and is more OUT THERE, than IN HERE, which is what, I think, Ghost in the Shell's GEIST is all about. I would think that the vernacular use of the word is more relevant than Hegel's usage.

So I don't think Hegel's GEIST is related, but I do think GEIST is probably the most relevant origin of the GHOST in Ghost in the Shell.

-SABRETACHE

I have a question regarding the movie adaptation of Ghost in the Shell. It is explicitly stated in the making-of feature on my DVD release of Ghost in the Shell that the movie takes place in Hong Kong, which confuses me since I've always thought Project 2501 was developed by the nation of Japan and that both Section 6 and Section 9 originated from that same country. Could someone clarify this to me? --81.226.162.222 13:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the manga it's clear that Section 6 and Section 9 are part of the Japanese government. Shirow notes that this is inspired by the British system (e.g. MI5 and MI6) because Japan doesn't currently have any similar agencies. I'm don't see why they would change the setting to Hong Kong in the movie, given that HK is part of China, but I'd have to watch the movie again to make sure. - mako 15:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The manga and SAC are based in Newport City, Japan. However, the movies are based in Newport City which appears to be or be in Hong Kong, or possibly in China; I recall that this was "to disorient" Japanese viewers (I do not have a reference for this, I will have a look).

Additionally, the government system was based on the UK system: Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Foreign Minister, etc. This is stated in Shirow's notes in the GITS manga.

Asteroceras 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In Ghost in the Shell, Major completely reproduces her stimulus of her entire organs including internal organs to maintain her ghost. In case of a technical transferring of a ghost from one body to another, the attempt normally results in failure since the ghost tends to deteriorate due to either the difference of system at the material level or the deficiency of the transferring protocol. The Puppet Master manages not to deteriorate its ghost when merging with Major because his system is the body of information itself, thereby avoiding a deterioration due to the deficiency at material level.

When in Ghost in the shell did she transfer her ghost from one body to another? In the series she never transfered her ghost to anyone. She did have multiple bodies but she transfered her cyber-brain case (holds brain and spinal cord) to another one of her bodies. She even remotely controlled a couple bodies. In the SAC series in episode 1 someone transfered to a different body using this method. I don't remember her ever transfering her ghost anywhere. We actually really never see the process but since thats the given method for transfering to different bodies I assume its the correct way.

Is it really neccessary to refer to ghost hacking as an of yet fictional activity? I found it distracting and pointless, it's assumed that fictional thing can become real eventually...

Philsophical discussion relating to GITS: SAC ep 15 "Time of the Machines – MACHINES DÉSIRANTES"

'Machines dèsirantes' ('desiring machines') is philosophical term developed by French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their work Anti-Oedipus. In the second volume to Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, they use the terms 'agencement' and 'dispotif' which are translated into English as 'assemblage' instead of 'desiring machines'. The original term had too much of an unintended subjective interpretation. 'Assemblage' is a particular configuration of heterogeneous elements that exist in relation with each other with a certain consistency.

In episode 15 one of the tachikoma units (number 1 below) is holding a copy of Anti-Oedipus and says to other units:

1: ...the problem is that we're too close to being human. It's because the line that separates human from robot has already become a few minor differences of the physical body. Stop and think why our 'bodies without organs' are not made to look human. 2: Efficiency as weapons, maybe? 1: That's part of it, but the more important reason is that if we were humanoid our users would overempathize with us in a weird way. I think we'd be hated even more if we were humanoid."

"Body without organs" is another key concept in Anti-Oedipus. In another Deleuze and Guattari text, What is Philosophy?, they use the term "plane of immanence" instead. The 'body without organs' is a particular space that has not yet been potentialised (or what Deleuze and Guattari call 'territorialization') as having a set of 'organs' that would populate the space in a particular configuration. In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari argue against the psychoanalytic territorialization of the desiring machines of bodies. Instead they suggest getting back to the 'body without organs' or, better yet, attempting to construct one anew through deterritorialisation. The point here is that instead of being constituted through the connections enabled by the 'desiring machines' into which we are socialised (Deleuze and Guattari call this 'Oedipalisation'), they attempt to outline how we can reconnect in creative and experimental ways. The elaborate methodological technique for understanding the machinic dimension of a body they call 'schizoanalysis'.

A body as such is a certain form of assemblage, it is determined by connections and flows and stoppages enabled by the desiring machines with which it is connected. The use of an organic oil in one of the tachikoma units has been used as a plot device by the creators of GITS: SAC as a way to indicate a change in the assemblage of which the individual tachikoma units were part (which includes the oil, other section 9 members, socio-technical infrastructure, and the all the tachikomas). The initial state of the tachikomas to be non-human is nothing other than an attempt to maintain an empathetic distinction between human and non-human, and non-human as 'tool'. This is a recurring theme throughout GITS. The tachikomas have a specific 'technological Oedipalisation', that is, a programmatic attempt to constitute the flows of information and oil through connections sanctioned through protocol by the authoritative elements of the assemblage of which they are part, i.e. the humans.

In an interview, Deleuze once said that he and Guattari attempted to create a pop-philosophy, which they thought they had failed. Yet, with this appearance of some of their concepts not only literally in one episode, but concepts which resonate throughout the whole GITS world, it is apparent that their pop-philosophy has had some success.

Glen fuller 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's supposed to be ambigious too, but don't you wonder why it happens after the Tachikoma has the Natural Oil? Like the proteins and stuff from that helped to evolve or whatever?

camouflage

Hello. I couldn't help but notice that Kusanagi's camouflage technology is called 'thermoptic'. This technology appears word-to-word in the PC game Deus Ex: an item called 'thermoptic camo' makes the player become invisible to the human eye as well as cameras and robots. I was just wondering if anybody's heard the term appear elsewhere (i.e. is it a common phrase in sci-fi/cyberpunk) or could it be listed as GITS's influence on Deus Ex?

  • As far as I know it's just 2 words combined to form a new one to describe the combination. Thermoptic camo seems to be just one of them. The original word originates from Japanese so it might come from whoever translated it. I Don't think it's worth any further mention though, with a succes like GitS ideas and words are bound to pop up in other works. --Jimius 15:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It could get a mention as an evolution of the technology in Neuromancer. The Panter Modern's Mimetic Polycarbon suits are a generation behind, but that's the likely influence.
  • The character named Gunther Hermann has an eye augmentation that closely resembles Batou's: metallic ring with lens where the eye used to be. And there's a street thug whose design is very much like that of the thug at the beginning of the movie (the one Batou chases through the market). (Or maybe I'm just pushing it...)


Well helo there ;)

No you are not pushing it. Deus Ex and GiTS have quite a few things in comon actually. The likes of Hermann and Ana Navare have their bodies augmented (metalic limbs and organs that enhance the capability of the host), such as legs, hands, eyes,.. but their brains are "untuched" in a way they are only humans with "normal" robotic "output" so to speak. Denton (the main cracther in the game) is also aougmented but on a much higher level as compared to Hermann. Denton has nanobots inside of him, functions of those nanobots can be enhanced with upgrade modules that are more or less nothing than a nanoDNA code. There fore he looks just like the major on the outside and can do more or less everything as dose the major exept for ghost hacking, but he can hack into terminals and the net. There is also a AI program in the Deus Ex that has gained selfawernes by "merging" with another AI ( 2 Echelon sistems called Dedalus and Icarus ) that calls him self Helios. Towards end of the game u find out that Denton din't came to world by natural birth but was artificaly incepted and "modified" in the lab. Anyway the main antagonist in the game Bob Page uses the same tehnology that was used to "make" Denton to transform him self into pure information, data or however u wish to call it and thus beeing able to merge himself with the AI. Purpose of merging is diff than that in the GiTS off course. But none the less as you can see there r quite a number of conection points between the Deus EX game and GiTS. Denton like major questions his origins, merging with an AI, hacking to the net, aougmented body of Denton and a cayborg body of major. And affter merging with an AI both give rise two new entity

JC Denton ;)

Manga

The Ghost in the Shell template links to the manga article at Ghost in the Shell (manga), which previously was a red link, but which I've changed to redirect here. Should this page be moved to Ghost in the Shell (manga) instead? There are many pages that link to this article, Ghost in the Shell, but many (perhaps most) are supposed to be links to the article about the movie, Ghost in the Shell (1995 film). Would it be better if Ghost in the Shell were a disambiguation page? Steve McKinney 08:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above, switching the two article titles. I was searching for the film article, and it was rather hard to find, and I got to this article, which I thought initially as an article on GITS in general. However, it's focused more on the manga itself and I thought it would be better if this article presented information common to all the adaptation of GITS such as recurring themes, and it would be better to move manga plotlines into the Ghost in the Shell (manga) article. What do you guys think? Boneheadmx 04:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is indeed shaping up as a "GitS general topics" sort of thing. I agree that it would be good to flesh out a Ghost in the Shell (manga) article and then change the focus of this main article to reflect its general nature. - mako 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I will add in a little blurb in the beginning of the article that goes something like this: "This article covers general topics in Ghost in the Shell. For the manga, go to Ghost in the Shell (manga). For the films, go to Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) and Innocence: Ghost in the Shell...etc." Or I could direct people to the template which covers the different releases of GITS. In any case, I already made the manga article a stub, so people can start working on it. Boneheadmx 06:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong in the first film. Why do you list false information?

The name of the city is NIIHAMA(新浜). It is not Hong Kong.

The stage is Japan by the original Japanese version. 60.33.34.133 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote Lead

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

Shirow vs. Shirō

Someone is changing all the instances of "Masamune Shirow" to "Masamune Shirō" in this article. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is the name spelled "Shirō" nor did I find it on any other website at all. Google even corrected it. If you want to discuss it please do it here and we'll work something out, in the meantime I am changing it back since there isn't even an article on "Shirō" and it invalidated the link to Shirow's page. Difeon (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked and I see what you were trying to do. The japanese spelling is "Shirō." However, this is the English article about Ghost in the Shell. Maybe if you want to add his japanese spelling to the article Masamune Shirow, but it is standard on Wikipedia to use English name over Japanese name. Thanks Difeon (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a question of Japanese or English names. "Shirow" uses a different romanization spelling, but the actual romanization nowadays is "Shirō". His Japanese pen name is 士郎, which can be romanized to either "Shirow" or "Shirō". - M0rphzone (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Refs

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

So far we only have four.Lucia Black (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Used all the reviews so im looking for any mentions within books.

Hope they can be used soon.Lucia Black (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Found some interviews. I will be posting them here:

Hope they are used for the article.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Aw, man...someone rewrote my lead? I thought I did a really good job. I followed other featured anime articles as a model. Retreating to the sandbox now...148.137.224.217 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, this is DiFeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.224.217 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

are you sure? It was too detailed about every aspect of the article. I used Madlax as an example. The lead isnt that long.Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

B-Class?

Im fairly certain this article is B-Class, however ive seen other articles that i previously put B-Class back to C. So just to be safe, i would like an outside opinion on the matter. Is there anything that stopping this article from being B-Class?Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to B-class, if anyone thinks its not upto B-class, please mention it here, and we can work it out.Lucia Black (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN?

Anyone believe this article is ready to be nominated for GA? I know the development section needs expansion but i cant find much so i might just merge it with the manga section.Lucia Black (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

well...just gonna be bold about it. i think i've done alot on my own and i can't really find what it needs up at this point.Lucia Black (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right off the bat, prose and errors jump right out at me here. In the lede, " led by protagonist Major Motoko Kusanagi". Chief Aramaki runs it. Motoko is the field commander.

Setting needs expansion and work.

"The series takes place in the near future, where many people can become cyborgs with prosthetic bodies." - 'where many people can become' sounds off. I think it would be good to put its cyberpunk background in here as well. The society itself is different from our own and should be covered in the setting as well. Spinning off to its own article does not justify a short paragraph like this either.

Story needs work as well. It doesn't adequately cover the events and is particularly hard to follow, the prose isn't wonderful either. "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou." For example.

Also 'Motoko Aramaki' in the second part is confusing. Why did her last name change? Ghost in the Shell 1.5 seems better, but it could use a bit of expansion. The varying names and changes are going to be hard for unfamiliar readers to follow.

It could use a character section, as the article seems lacking without it. The live action film section lacks an update. Will anything ever become of it? I don't know why the anime series isn't covered either. As the hatnote says 'This article is about the media franchise.' It should cover all the media in some form including the video games. This article needs a lot of updating and expansion to cover the material, it really is rather bare bones. I'll put it on hold, but this will take a lot of work to pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can fix to make things clearer and have a more encyclopedic tone. However i cant fix the subjective issues you have with the plot. I dont understand what the issue is with "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou." Her conscioussness merged with the Puppeteer and she woke up in a new prostetic body.
There is no clear reason why her name changed unfortunately, so i cant give much of an answer. The plot of Ghost in the Shell is a bit difficult. The 1.5 plot is the one i personally think looks the worst but at the same time it looks like that because there is no overarching plot that the manga follows so listing the story chapter by chapter is better without saying "Section 9 in their four investigations" So i will be editing that more so it doesnt say "In chapter this" and "In chapter that".
I'm not so sure a "character" section is absolutely necessary for GA status as i noticed many anime and manga articles not have a character section.
Although i would like to add its cyberpunk background, the problem is not much has been revealed in the manga. Plus the articles in there have a lot of Original research and not all of it falls in the same series, in fact most of it falls in the Stand Alone Complex series which is an alternate continuation. So i dont want to add anything thats not necessary and eventually will be removed for original research.
The article is now mainly about the manga since they have been merged hence why reception and development are solely on the manga. The article however does cover all media directly relating to the series but does not over media based on the adaptations based on the manga. For example: It would be trivial to list the soundtracks on the main article if the soundtracks are related more too the film over the manga.
The live action film has hardly any info. This happens quite often. Many producers want to create a live action film of a manga or anime. Should i just say " As of 2013 no news or reports of its progress has surfaced" at the end of it?
I think this was a hasty review considering that the anime series is covered. I dont know why you say it isnt.Lucia Black (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Little personal info here, I love the series. So I've delved into the background and the symbolism and the world of GITS very closely. This article is about the franchise, I'd EXPECT a character section for key figures like Motoko. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex does a better job of covering the relevant material then this article. If I am reading about the franchise I do not think that the key reoccurring characters should require a hop to learn even basic details about them. GA is not explicit in what it must have and what it should have, only that it be both broad and detailed within expectations. Not giving readers key character overviews on the key page is a problem.

Since you do not see my concerns I'll point them out with this sentence. "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou."

She has safe houses or just one? I also thought that she needs no physical body and exists on the net itself. With the dolls (never covered either...) just being physical tools for her. So even here the overview is wrong and critically so.

Tachikomas are also footnoted with half a paragraph dedicated to them, a long icon of the series. They played a role like Data of Star Trek and serve to further the philosophy that GITS pushes so hard.

Also as for the anime and the movies, nothing is mentioned of the top-tier graphics used and how it is still cutting edge even today and really pushed the envelope. Thi→s page is better suited to the manga then to the franchise. It is lacking detailed information on the series, the novels and while it does cover the manga, does nothing to bring up the philosophy and Shirow's vision of the future. It doesn't even gloss over Motoko's gender identity and sexuality matters, it outright ignores them. It ignores political commentary and society issues that are very detailed and are key to the lengthy plot lines. GITS is dialog heavy and extremely philosophical, its not action based and to avoid key elements of what makes the series unique and identifiable is perhaps the single biggest issue I can take with it.

Reliable sources are abound for GITS, its not original research to call it cyberpunk, its not original research to discuss transhumanism. Its part of the plot itself. Attention to detail and the fictional universe's workings are going to be difficult because it is foreign enough to throw most readers a few curveballs, but this page barely scrapes the surface of the franchise and what it truly is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no detailed studies about this that are accessible. Ive searched for these things through constant interviews and reviews of the series. Some of the things (if not most) actually is original research such as her gender identity (again only in her stand alone complex series) and sexuality (there is no such discussion unless by fans).
I feel we need a less bias reviewer.Lucia Black (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You got me. Someone who actually knows something about the series and you are complaining about that? I'm not going to rubberstamp this and give a GA when it doesn't deserve it. Let's take another example. The Laughing Man. Which has its own article on Wiki. The Catcher in the Rye is a key part for Stand Alone Complex. This article doesn't even mention the Laughing Man, let alone the repeated Salinger references. Oh and those come straight from the episodes and the book itself. But you know the official interview is pretty much a reliable source. And while anime news network may not seem super reliable, but the news feed is according to WP:A&M/I. I remember Newtype doing a full thing on GITS as well covering the it and I.G when SAC came out. That is a reliable source. But you can alsouse the interviews like this. [4] Though the original ones on the DVDs and other places are great. Such as this from IG. [5] "I created an episode that was not written in the original manga, and recounted her past. And in order to emphasize her past, I put a love affair in there. Through this process, I finally understood that this mysterious superhuman was actually a real human being with a miserable past. And as a human who was chosen to gain this superhuman power, she probably believes that she has an obligation to use that ability for the benefit of others. This was my conclusion. You know, just as a very talented athlete gives us inspiration through his or her efforts, she is stoically trying to use her capability in her own way." Though you can also get such official 'essays' from IG as well on Cyberbrains and what not. [6] The material and the concepts, the philosophy and the development of the series covers it without going into unreliable resources. You just have to look for it. Though the best ones are in Japanese. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a rubber stamp GA. Im asking for a less bias review. You are giving some help, but at the same time youre asking for information that may not necessarily cover this article's current quality.

Rather youre disapointed this article is about the manga and arguing about how little it covers but actually you're trying to make it into an overall franchise. Your taking this as a Fan and as a fan you assume there is an extensive ammount of coverage. You are focusing on Stand Alone Complex series. This is about the manga (mainly) and which will subsequently mention the other adaptations such as the The film and TV series. Thats why the Plot, Development and Reception and such is directly relating to the Manga.

These elements were not introduced in the manga so i cant cover it in the main article because the article is about the manga. I can add it in and state the Stand Alone Complex series expands on such matters but you're not really asking for that, youre asking for me to put it as the accepted setting of all GITS media in which i can't because each series is different from the other.

So let me make this clear as day....this article is mainly about the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, do not go changing the scope of the article as you did in this diff. [7] It said that this article is about the media franchise. You are changing the scope of the article yet you are keeping in it? That does not seem fair. I began the review about the media franchise, just because you want to change it to the manga doesn't mean I'm going to pass it as it is. Your claim of bias is unfounded and is not constructive when I am trying to assist you. And FYI, people are supposed to have the material when they review something, I happen to own the works and have them on hand, so I am more then well aware that even the plot is incorrect and needs fixing. There are many GITS related articles on Wikipedia and the template reverts back to this one as the main page. If you are going to put one up about the manga, do so on Ghost in the Shell (manga), but don't try and obscure or remove the scope of the article simply because I didn't give the answer you wanted. This review is on the media franchise. You can either fix it or I can fail it, but please do not disrupt Wikipedia to try and make a point again. That falls under WP:POINTY. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
What point is there that you claim i'm trying to make? WP:POINT is about disruptive edits in order to make a point. I made that edit not to be disruptive but to clarify. I changed it because at the time manga and the franchise were separated when the media franchise wasnt really notable on its own. None of the manga were either and it wouldnt make sense to have the manga alone without mentioning the rest of its adaptations. Considering the original media of ghost in the shell (the manga) now merged with the franchise mostly made up of manga info, and all adaptations have their own articles, it is only logical and appropriate to make the article mainly about the manga. The scope hasnt changed, only the focus. It still is a media franchise but now primarily about the manga. Also considering each series was developed differently it would be Original Research to assume all three series share the same elements.

Its almost impossible to be about the media franchise alone when it comes to the article because each one has their own article, so all relevant info would go there. It would be redundant to try to compact that info into one article when they are notable on their own. I also have the material of GITS manga and GITS2. The only one im missing is 1.5. If incorrect then it was only interpretted incorrectly.

it may hurt that i use the word "bias" but completely appropriate. You're focused on several in-universe areas that cover their own article.Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong here. Mortal Kombat redirects to the franchise, not to the first game. Much less either of the games with the same name... but I digress. The easiest navigation page for a subject with multiple pages should be the broadest and most wide scoped of all articles, that would be the GITS as a whole as is correctly represented here. The reason why it should be used as this page is obvious from the name, more then one subject traces back to Ghost in the Shell. The manga, the anime, the novel just like Vampire Hunter D is about the whole franchise and not the novel. And more specifically Neon Genesis Evangelion which is not about the anime, but the franchise as well. Do I need to stress the point? Also for Mortal Kombat, I did the GA review for it. That is a very good example of how to do an article on a franchise properly. And yes it links to about 20 different articles from there with its own detailed coverage. Just because an article covers material elsewhere doesn't give a pass on a broad summary of the subject. Earth is a perfect example of that. The GITS franchise is notable, and the material is notable on its own. Just because the series has different stories and characters doesn't mean it isn't related. You do realize the timeline and canon flows, right? They do not have to be all directly connected either, but yes, here is another example of that: Final Fantasy. The games have no relation to each other (exceptions... I know), but Final Fantasy is not about the first game its about the franchise. I'm done beating a dead horse here. The article should be about the franchise as per convention. OK? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

I am guessing from the comments at the Good article pages that a second opinion is sought. I am willing to try and answer any questions that arise if you both agree. At the end of the day however, it will be up to Chris whether he passes the article or not. If you can't collaborate then the best approach is to simply fail the review (the nominator can withdraw at any time too, which will result in the same outcome) and then renominate the article.

From what I can tell, the major bone of contention here is the scope. I know nothing about this topic so may not be much use. From the little I have read above it would be perfectly justifiable to have one article on the manga and another one on the franchise as a whole. I don't think it is up to the reviewer to say what this article should be about, but if the contents don't match the scope then they are entitled (probably even required) to raise questions. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding from reading between the lines is that if this is about the manga then it may lack focus as it goes into too much detail about the spinoffs and if it is about the franchise then it lacks broadness because it is missing important details.

My advice would be to fail the article as it is, the conversation is already delving into the uncivil which will make the collaboration necessary to achieve a Good article virtually impossible. I then think you need to decide what this article is going to be about and then be consistent in how this is presented. As an aside the prose is quite poor, enough that I would fail the article on that alone. Some examples from the development section:

  • Masamune Shirow was influenced by several books on insects. Shirow had also noticed that young boys in Japan seem to identify to Robot heroes first. - How is this relevant. Needs more explanation, especially as it is the lead in to the section
  • Throughout writing the manga, Masamune Shirow had a struggle of finding of not making it neither too complex nor too simple - Grammar
  • However for various reasons, he decided not to do so Ambiguous - What were the reason?
  • Shirow considers the manga a completely different kind of work and not a true sequel as the plot of Ghost in the Shell revolved around Public Security Section 9 and Ghost in the Shell 2: Man-Machine Interface follows what happens to Motoko after she merges with the Puppeteer. Confusing sentence - What manga? Too much plot and not enough context.
  • Shirow had drew the color pages on computer, in which he states was difficult to due to technical issues with his computer. Grammar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)
You forgot to sign, Aircorn. Anyways, to be blunt about the scope of the topic, the scope was the franchise prior to the review and it was changed after the review began. That's changing the rules as far as I am concerned. Also, it should not have been changed as this article covers all the media and not solely the manga. While it is unbalanced to the manga it still mentions the series, the movies and the video game. As the main incoming link, this article should function as the top level and broad scoped overview of the entire franchise per convention. I do not think I am being uncivil and I have not resorted to pinning negative terms like 'bias' because the reviewer happens to have knowledge of the subject. Only someone grossly uninformed with the subject and not going by the guidelines would consider this article even remotely near the criteria. I'd be happy to fix the poor prose and deal with cleaning it up, but I do not want to be attacked for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the two previously unmentioned Ghost in the Shell games to the article, they do not have articles on their own, but I'm being lazy today. I still other important bits missing, but I'll deal with those later. I'm trying to lead by example here in hopes that Lucia Black understands what kind of material I want for a GA. Missing two of the three video games released on major consoles sort of fits that bill I say, but there is far more missing then it is worth pointing out simply because I can research and find it myself, then add it in the time it takes to find it and complain about its absence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA conclusion

This article will not pass, the issues are too deep. I'm going to fail it now. It has no chance of passing GA in its current state and until the issues are seriously addressed it should not be renominated. The scope of the article was changed mid-review by Lucia Black as noted above, more so the Ghost in the Shell (manga) page was unilaterally merged into this page and made into a redirect. The page has been deformed since then, not everything needs to be on one page and Lucia Black does not understand the scope of the matter and does not want me to attempt to fix them here. Thus I will close this as fail and continue to address the many problems of this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The merger was necessary. The article's structure is not an issue and therefore stating it is "deformed" is an opinion at best. Though i agree with one thing "not everything has to be on one page."Lucia Black (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It was not necessary, that's the point. The move should not have been done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was laughably bad, I just improved it a bit. For example, almost every(!) title was not italicized and there were just stupid things like SCE Japan Studio being written as "SCE Studio Japan"(!!). Other things included balded names, random linking, random capitalization, incorrect names, awkward prose, and more. And I think it's still not done. (Yeah, it's still really bad, for example: "Masamune Shirow was influenced by several books on insects. Shirow had also noticed that young boys in Japan seem to identify to Robot heroes first." lol) --Niemti (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and btw: wasn't "Major" just a nickname/nom-de-guerre (from the actual war?), not her actual rank in the S9? And wasn't she always being addressed by others as Major, never "Motoko"/"Kusanagi"? If I'm right about it (I'm not sure, it's several years I last watched/read/played anything GitS), it's another huge mistake that needs to be corrected. (or it could be that "Motoko Kusanagi" is actually a pseudonym/fake name, I don't really remember, but I'm pretty positive it was practically always only "Major".) --Niemti (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article according to the stats is a top 10000 article on Wikipedia with some 60,000 hits a month. Having it based on the manga instead of the franchise is a bad idea. If anyone can give a good solid reason why this should be so, please state so here. After 12 hours, I think I'll go back to addressing concerns if no valid argument is able to be raised. And for the record, the franchise is notable, it just didn't have a lot of information about it. Here is my plan of action:

  1. Remove some of the manga details and push them into Ghost in the Shell (manga)  Done
  2. Update and correct the issues with plot and story in the manga, the film and such as noted on their individual pages.
  3. Correctly detail the complex nature of the media as for the story, it is not linear.
  4. Greatly expand the development section, maybe produce some nice timelines.
  5. Reduce all media sections with there own pages to a two paragraph summary style, with direct main links to said material.
  6. Cover the artbooks, storybooks, and other background providing that media as more of a list and informative summary of the work of Shirow for those interested, I doubt they need their own articles for any of them.
  7. Fix the differences in the Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell 2.0 comparison. At least note it here.
  8. Fill out the lede some more with at least a few important dates.
  9. Add a character overview section to the topic. Greatly expand the page containing the list of characters.
  10. Fix the issue with Motoko Kusanagi page materials being scattered around. Same goes with the other characters like the Laughing Man and the Puppeteer/Puppet master/2501 the whole thing is incoherent.
  11. Update the appropriate sections for the TV series, summarize briefly and send them off to their own articles, right now they are tiny and underdeveloped. The target pages need to be expanded.
  12. While not directly related to this page, split the two games from the SAC video game and give them their own articles as they are entirely different games.
  13. Add the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex manga somewhere.
  14. Update the nav box to include that.
  15. Add a section on Ghost in the Shell's philosophical section, cover briefly and then split off to the existing article and detail it. Using the Production IG and other interviews from the staff to back it up, and the official canon documents coming from Shirow.
  16. Also update its influence and popular culture sections. It has been lampooned in comics, programming and caused a shift in thinking with its social commentary.
  17. Add something about the Tachikoma and their Fuchi/Uchi counterparts to the main article. Then split off as the article exists.
  18. Add footnotes to explain complicated series info if need be.
  19. Split the primary source document references from the secondary ones. Probably not needed, but looks better.
  20. Perform a final clean up and then go from there.

These are the steps I want to take, in a handy list no doubt. Its ambitious, but the entire franchise and its pages need a complete overhaul I think. This should get it to GA if not FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These are the reaasons why this wont work. 1) This will just be over redundant info. Its going to be merely a compilation of all three distinct series, however it will be worst because all media will be compiled and convoluted. 2) Its common practice to have the media section under the manga, so splitting that from the manga wont help at all. So basically the merger will happen eventually. 4) The three distinct series hold different new elements, we cant assume that all three hold the same background, for example: World War 3 and 4 which was mainly featured in SAC series. 3) You expanded the original PSX video game and included its soundtrack in the video game section? Didnt it bother you that other media that was mentioned briefly in the "TV series" bother you? 4) Some of these ideas are too fancruft. We really dont need to split primary from secondary. Its unnecssary wont make the article look any better. 5) Yoour distinction between continuities is lacking common sense and really needs work. For one to consider SAC video games completely different from the SAC simply because they don't share the same story and worst to somehow make it that its more connected to the entire series overall than the TV series.

I'm starting to notice the only reason this is happening is not for there to be an article to cover all coverage in general but because the film has been more recognized than the manga and it bothers you that the manga was merged not because it deserves to be separate from the series article, but because it suggests the original media is the one people are looking for over the film.Lucia Black (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me work on it. I can handle it, its not that big of a project. My ideas are 'fancruft' such as laying out the material broadly so readers can find it? I do not believe that. Also, its the merge itself that bothers me, you lock down meaning to the #1 incoming search term and intend to display that prominently, all but reducing the others to interwiki links. Doesn't seem proper. There is a reason Star Wars covers more then just the movies, with your way, finding the material you want on a subject requires extra digging then should be necessary. You type in Ghost in the Shell, you should get the franchise page, not the manga. But the franchise will direct to the manga when it brings it up, and prominently as well. So will be for the movie and so on. Cover the materials, not just the manga. That's the mantra to go by for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Got some stuff started, only one thing on the list done... but its a basic outline now and the strengthening of the article begins. I want to integrate the existing materials in a way that is natural, but without more content on the page it seems a bit bare. More to come later. Still going slow and discussing things with Lucia Black, now on the Anime Wikiproject talk. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been adding the non-Shirow works, the graphic novels and the novels themselves to the article. Only the one tied to Innocence was mentioned elsewhere, so we have a good amount of media that wasn't even covered and by three different writers no less. I did some work today on the figurines, the merchandise, cleaned up the characters, made the interwiki links for those more accessible, did some organizational work and filling out of a few extra things. More to come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

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

More about the 1995 film's impact

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

The infobox needs to be replaced

--Niemti (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

All of character articles seriously need attention

I did some work on Motoko's. --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Structure

Extended content

I am starting this after wiping the slate clean. This is a ordered discussion on the structure of the article.

Ghost in the Shell, this page, should be about the entire topic of Ghost in the Shell and provide a summary and split off to the relevant sections. Per WP:SS's WP:DETAIL, "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs." SS's rational also notes the balance of details to different readers and currently this page is more fitting of a manga entry then the whole topic. WP:SS is the keystone of the argument because 2000~ words are given to the original media and 400 words comprise 30 other entries in this topic. This page fails to educate and inform readers of what even exists, much less provide meaningful information about it. Contrary to Lucia's directly related points, These are not all adaptions, but re-imaginings with the original manga being a foundation. The two Oshii films are adaptations. It is not like Fullmetal Alchemist and comparison is more like Pokemon the game and the anime; same setting and characters with similar premise, but not an adaption and is its own story. Previously Ryulong presented a compromise for a list, of chapters being split off, but the page is simply better off being unrestricted and existing as a whole per SS and not splitting key content. Please give arguments in policy for this. I will notify previous respondents who commented here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying their directly related to the manga. Not that their direct adaptations. That is the last time I clarify. And you just proved my point, if the manga is the foundation of all the spin offs (and each spin off becomes its own branch) it makes sense to have the main article focus on the original media. Why? Because if the original media splits off from the main article, the manga will still have to mention the other spin offs that used the manga to reimagine it (foundation). So they will be near duplicates. On another note, the only true re imagination was Stand Alone Complex.
Also, there's not enough info treating Ghost in the shell all as a collective franchise for Ghost in the Shell (manga) to be split off.Lucia Black (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you really manually archive everything? Wow.
Chris, the scope of this article should be the manga. Not the franchise because the franchise is just something people like you have made up and is therefore not notable. There are no reliable sources out there that discuss this as a franchise or the media as a whole. Everything is discussed as its parts and every single reference on this page regards one of the parts of the whole. The same way you twist WP:SS to supports your idea that this article should not be about the manga just because the article also briefly covers the films and SAC, I can argue that it is a violation of WP:OR to say that the franchise is something that exists outside of your mind.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Before repeating this loop again, I want to confirm something. The arguments against are due to "Original manga and its adaptions" do not have enough info and the "Franchise does not have reception as a whole" am I right? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)



Discussion

I'm moving this down. The arguments are not changing and discussion is extranous, giving space for responses above as this is just arguing. The three of our stances are well established. Let's not flood. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

You don't need to remind us that its not about a vote, if it was we'd stop reasoning and just say "oppose". We just have stronger reasons. This isn't a specific policy-based argument. You can't really bring a policy to help your case because all of what you quote is upto interpretation. What you ask is completely based on personal preference. Do I prefer the manga to be the main article? Yes. But its not a personal preference. The split would only cause a near duplicate or leave the manga article incredibly underdeveloped. You've evaded this key issue long enough. WP:REDUNDANTFORK is about splitting off material that may have already been split off, but is also meant for splits that would need the same information as the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

My perspective: No need for a franchise article because the original media will cover the same thing. The two will be so close it will inevitably be merged back. Why did you think they were merged back in the first place by Ryulong? The "lemon" is the multiple spin offs that will be mentioned in both original media and in the supposed "franchise" article. The "water and sugar" is the focus of the article. Both will still taste like "lemon". WP:DETAIL gives various needs certain situations of what a reader would need to get the level of detail within an article (lead section, only key points, or summay to a link to a child article). However that does not imply that the main article should split all topics into child articles. WP:SS states "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." So even if it splits, it will not be organized the way you wanted to. But overall, this "issue" is also based on how the most popular/accessible series Stand Alone Complex having less info in the main article. That's the only reason why you try to use WP:UNDUELucia Black (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I am currently fixing another series, however I'm unsure about the List of chapters. It's a third of the manga's info into a separate article, so it defeats the purpose of the main article being focused on the manga. If Ryulong is willing to cooperate, ill push for it. But if its going to start a huge mess, I rather not fight it for another time.Lucia Black (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Understandable Lucia, let's not discuss it tonight and let's take this slow. Ryulong, User_talk:ChrisGualtieri#Easy_fixes was at my talk page. If you do not agree with any of them, don't change them. Tomorrow, I'll propose some discussion of non-content matters to get a feeling for where we all stand on this. Have a good night, Ryulong and Lucia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Those easy fixes ask for way too many details that are not necessary (and are pretty much trivial).—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone should be feeling a bit more relaxed today. I'd like to ask, upon reading the original manga (and the second if you did), what story did you like the best? I was really interested in the Chapter 4 and 5, the little revolution was cute, but the technical and deep aspects of creating an artificial body was really interesting. Shirow's is a bit goofy, but its that kind of superiority from Motoko that is really lost on the other media; and she's proud of it. She's not afraid to threaten the Colonel, even in the presence of Aramaki. Much of the sexuality exists in that free, perverse form with an outpouring of hedonistic pleasures. The 'travesty' of the artbook of the Man/Machine interface I can agree with on some level because it was an insult to the classic styles and feel, it just lacked the human touch and while you can argue that is what Shirow wanted to expunge, it still lacked charm for me. For such a private figure, Shirow has a wicked sense of humor. I love the manga more then the other works, but it is not approachable in reverse because of that goofy humor. Its not Akira, but that's a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Although it is common practice, it does not mean every chapters list should be split off. List of FLCL episodes was merged back for being too short. In fact, I see a few lists that could possibly be merged back Codename: Sailor V and Outlaw Star.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Organization of the whole

I was thinking of making sub-sections for the "universes" in which to lay out content. With the original manga being one set. The Oshii adaptations being under "original adaptation/Film" or some sort, and the original video game being listed within. SAC would be represented by the show (since season 1 and 2 may end up being combined as a single page) with mentions to the two OAV and the SSS film following; afterwards the novels and the SAC mangas would be listed as well as the SAC video games. Arise would get its own section. Non-specific sections like the pachislots I guess would fall under "Other".

However, that also presents some organization problems... should it be chronological with a table of universe media in some fancy format? Or should that just be a side-bar for accessibility. And what about the music? Should that be included or no. I really need to bounce some ideas to find what makes most sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is just a way for you to transform this page into the "franchise page" that myself and Lucia, who is now banned but her opinion is still somewhat valid, opposed. This page is about the manga and it provides short summaries of the other releases in their real world contexts only. Expand upon the plots of the other versions on their own articles rather than this one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It already as the adaptions covered; I was asking about its organization. I not even mentioning plot here. I've already nommed the film to be a GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The current organization of the media section seems to suffice, in that it presents the information in chronological order of first entry. I believe we should instead focus some energy on merging 2nd GIG with the main SAC article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Should we push the list of episodes and their content together under GITS:SAC and just relabel the episode list as "List of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes"? Are you able to get and translate the SAC logs? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Having two separate lists of episodes is fine. Having two separate pages on the TV show seasons is not. And I don't have that kind of expendable income at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what I'd do without my library and anime DVD blowouts round here, but agreed. If SAC is combined and worked on, I supposed I could get that to GA level within 48 hours. Just a heads up, I've got a copy of Critical Anime coming through the inter-loan system which I am doing for "Cyborg Adolescence in FLCL", but also the Lain chapter... I suppose the first could involve GITS - but I don't know if anything specific will come up. Do you happen to have the Cyberpunk book, I still need that source before going too much further on Innocence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I could feasibly get these things from Amazon and get them within a day or so but I am not in the mood to start spending money just for Wikipedia, particularly concerning I don't know how my stipend is going to change in October (and I'd rather save up for a CD that hasn't been put onto iTunes yet).—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

influences on real life

Where would I put influences on real life, like eg: http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html (which has refs at the bottom) ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Perhaps we need to introduce an "influence" section. Although, I think World of Ghost in the Shell discusses the optical camouflage.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell/Archive_1&oldid=1089047487"