Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)

Redirect

The GITS manga is notable in its own right and by guideline and policy can have an article. If you have a problem with sourcing, or wish to redirect elsewhere, please discuss here. Currently Ghost in the Shell is about the media franchise, with separate pages with details on the various notable releases - film, individual series etc.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This page is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ghost in the Shell because there was previously a merge to Ghost in the Shell which is not about the media franchise but is about the manga and the media it spawned per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Page layout. It should not be restored unless the dispute is resolved and the creation is decided as being the right way to go.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

This page should be kept per policy, the misinterpretation of REDUNDANTFORK is a one-way contest that leads to AFD. This is not a redundant fork and every single argument to merge has been disproven on all fronts. There is no REDUNDANTFORKing, this is not the PTOPIC. The move has been contested for months, you will not enforce out of process removals of which the original process was contested with no consensus that has swung to policy based keeping and a majority of editors siding with separate articles. The increasing size and depth pushes this fact even further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a majority of editors when Lucia Black, although topic banned, clearly agrees with me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you at least look at the damn mess you caused by creating it at this redirect in the first place where all of the history is still located at the list of chapters page?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's because of your actions if I recall correctly, a histmerge could fix that, but you know mass content removals for "a mess" are really disruptive. Perhaps you care to include the stances of Niemti, Dragontalk, Rapunzel and the others? By all accounts, your "bang the table" arguments and "rhetoric"-based arguments are flat and cannot go by policy; and you silence others and write them off in absence. IDHT is one thing, and these pages are not to be deleted when contested and the status quo was pre-merger, not the creation you support, which you did. The DRN is one thing, but the removal is completely bad for Wikipedia, it is clearly damaging. Delete this article the proper way, don't revert it out of existence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does this have to be separate from both "Ghost in the Shell" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" though? Why did you never like the list of chapters? I've never seen this answered.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Its ugly. There are other reasons but thats a good one. Plus 'list of chapters' articles in general are un-encyclopedic. The efficient way is to have them incorporated into the main article with notes discussion on their general themes etc. As it stands, you had half the manga stuff listed with other general franchise info at Ghost in the Shell and a weak article on the chapters at 'list of chapters'. A tip - if you are having to have separate articles for 'chapter' based info - while still keeping the main subject on another page, then the entire format usually needs to be spun out into its own dedicated article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Plenty of other anime and manga articles are just fine being about a central topic and dedicating list pages for chapter titles and whatnot.

Somewhat related, when the histmerge is done and over, I think we should have "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" to host the content currently under "volume list" but we do whatever I did to get List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters to look like it does.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Big difference between 108 volumes and 3. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but having the whole graphic novel list template here looks ugly. I think it'd be better to transclude it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Must we nitpick layout and format before moving forward? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If we're going through with this, I'd still like to see the pages in a better state than they presently are or ever have been.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And I agree. It is my intention they all hit GA or FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So once the histmerge is complete shall we do the transclusion set up?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion after I reverted. I agree with Chris that there is a difference in scale between this and JoJo. The volume list is barely 6KB and is highly relevant to the topic of this article, so it doesn't meet the size or content guidelines for WP:SPLITing. Why make readers go to a whole different page for this content? Why make editors split their work across two pages? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks ugly and out of place here though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugliness is a matter of opinion; if you think you can make it prettier, go ahead. As for out of place, how is a list of volumes of a manga and a description of what happens in each out of place on a page about that same manga? Axem Titanium (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It just seems to be a format dedicated to individual chapter lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing notable or important about individual chapter lists that merit having a stand-alone page for them. It would be the same as a "list of harry potter chapters". When the notion of appearances impacts functionality, I have a problem with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Lists aren't held up to the same standards of notability as fully fleshed out articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I argued that it applies for "franchise/series/topic-overview" articles, but you disagreed. We should really try to come to an agreement on the disamb/franchise page. From there it would be easier to resolve the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Lists are a special type of article on Wikipedia. "Franchise articles" are not. However, a dab page would not provide our readers anything useful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I say serve the reader. Always do what serves the reader. Organize, group, and present information in a way that makes sense to a reader who is potentially unfamiliar with the subject matter. Assume as little as possible. Forcing readers to go to another page for a plot summary of the thing they're reading about does not serve the reader. I think the franchise page is shaping up very well as an initial landing page for a new reader who wants to know more about this "Ghost in the Shell" thingamabob. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The very confusing set up for media and games should hopefully be rectified now. I placed sections for the three distinct universes. Currently, a majority of the titles do not have articles, but should still be covered for completeness, like the two SAC mangas or the novels. I'm still missing the original universe mentions, but it is coming along nicely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh that doesn't work at all. You just copied shit from the other pages and pasted them onto the main page, providing way way way too much detail on topics that belong within the context of the other pages. I haven't reverted you out right but that's basically what's happened. This is ridiculous. Your expansions of these pages just take the forms of content forking.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SS disagrees. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything on WP:SS that says "copy stuff from other articles and paste it in another article". That's not a summary no matter how you define it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

With two sentences for a work, I think it deserves a mention per page layout, a bit redundant and need of some cleaning up, but an overview of the media should exist on the topic page. Just because it is currently so sparse doesn't mean its a problem, seems fine under RELART, at least till this dispute is resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That overview does not need to be anywhere as thorough as you made it by directly copying the media section from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

some sources

Some valuable info on the development of ghost in the shell. [1]

-Lucia Black (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article and search for possible issues before passing to GA.

• First of all, the lead section is too small. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section where it recommends splitting content. I would suggest also adding details to avoid short paragraphs.

• The word tankōbon should be written in italics.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• More criticism could be used in the reception section but it looks acceptable.

The rest of the article seems fine to me. I look forward to see the issues fixed.

How about leading zeros and unnecessary all CAPs. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That is important to. I hope User:ChrisGualtieri or somebody else check it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well.. I know the leading zeros are part of how the book is actually presented and faithfulness to the chapter title is being followed here. As for the all caps - I think it is pretty annoying and unusual, but this was a big issue with Ryulong - I know he's gone, but I'd rather third opinions form on that content matter because I don't have the time or energy to deal with something a year from now about this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Now it's a bit better but it is a small lead where I don't know what to split. If you are still busy, should I fail the review and wait for the next time? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am failing this review due to issues. Hopefully, it will be renominated without any of them.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Takes months to get a review, happens on vacation and now I'll have to wait months more for a simple thing which can take me an hour to rewrite - tops. Whatever... I nominated this for the anniversary and it took two months to get a review.... and I do not have the time to play these games. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The 2 anthology comics and the anthology novel

Ghost in the Shell: Comic Tribute (攻殻機動隊 ゴースト・イン・ザ・シェル コミックトリビュート) was released by Kodansha in 2017 and mostly uses this manga´s artstyle characterizations and canon so it should be listed somewhere on this page. Ghost in the Shell: Global Neural Network was released by Kodansha in 2019. The stories within are their own thing but the second of four also used the artstyle and canon of Shirow´s manga. The four on the other hand used Arise´s setting. It´s debatable where the 2nd anthology needs to be covered but the first is clearly a case for this page.

The novel The Ghost in the Shell: Five New Short Stories (攻殻機動隊小説アンソロジー) was also released by Kodansha in 2017 to line up with the anthology manga and needs to be covered somewhere as some of the authors again referred to the source manga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1F:8704:9301:C1BB:D6ED:5ABB:A350 (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Pornographic"

The "censorship" section says GitS2 "also featured pornographic scenes". The sourcing for this claim is exceptionally poor - it's http://kukaku.free.fr/differences.shtml

• The source does not look to be a reliable source - it seems to be a fan page.
• the source is exceedingly vague (it says "C'est carrement moins hard" which to translate as "It's much less hard")

Even if this were a reliable source, and even if it were clear that by "less hard" they meant "less sexually explicit", this still isn't evidence for the claim that the relevant content is "pornographic".

"Sexually explicit" is not a synonym for "pornography". The pornography article explains it is "sexual subject material ... intended for sexual arousal". While there are plenty of anime/manga that are pornographic, we need evidence that this artist in this work intended for the work to be sexually arousing. From context, this is plainly not the case - the series is about what it means to be human where human and machine bodies and minds interact, blurring the lines. Sexuality is a part of "being human".

For us to support the claim that it is "pornographic" we would need to cite a reliable source (as it's controversial, it should really be several reliable sources) that clearly and explicitly say that the material is, at least in their view, "pornographic" and not just "explicit".

It's arguably a WP:BLP violation to claim (in the encyclopedia's voice) that a respected living artist is a pornographer. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)