Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)/Archive 1

Manga merge

i can't seem to find alot of info on ghost in the shell manga 1.5 and 2. sucha s review or development. do you think we shoudl merge them?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livetooski (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Week oppose - If another review of Ghost in the Shell 2: Man-Machine Interface is found I definitely will be opposed to this merge. – Allen4names 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Manga synopsis false

I've read almost the entire Manga (with the exception of the last chapter) just now. And it is pasicly not very interconnected cases. Much like the stand alone episodes of GitS SAC. The Puppeteer case is one chapter at the beginning and another near the end, where he "dies", with motoko being somewhat influenced by his "death" afterwards (cause she was connected). Maybe the big revelation cmoes in the final chapter, but the puppeteer is just one case so far. It should be changed.91.19.238.6 (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all cases are connected i agree, i have read all the chapters, the last one the puppeteer mentions one the events of a previous chapter that was seemingly not related. I think i'll see what i can do to fix it.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge to main article?

Its a little hard to keep the ghost in the shell manga separate from the series. I beliebe it would be best to merge it to the main article. Its hard to imagine the two can be separate. I think if they get merged, it will help with the notability issues. Though i also thinking about splitting the release info into "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" which would mean taking all the refs i added into that one. What do you all think?Lucia Black (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the project page for the List of Ghost in the Shell chapters if anyone would be willing to fix it or so, it would be great. Also just to show if the article did exist, it might help decide if it should or shouldn't be merged.Lucia Black (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna be bold about it. If someone has an issue we can discuss it once it gets reverted.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Content merge

I've begun replacing the content from Ghost in the Shell to this page. As this focuses solely on the manga, this may be at GA levels now... given a few tweaks and alterations. I'm cleaning up the source page to not be redundant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not showing up, may be wriiten elsewhere

publisher_other = Dargaud, Glénat
Feest comics
Star Comics
Sharp Point Publishing
J.P.Fantastica

| publisher_other = Planeta Agostini
Glénat
Egmont
J.P.Fantastica

| publisher_other = Planeta DeAgostini
J.P.Fantastica

I can confirm JPF releases. --Niemti (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering there was no specific demand to publish Ghost in the Shell due to lack of time period, i find it rather unnecessary for the article to cover other publishers. If we had to wait 5-10 years for the manga and publishers that werent english were setting them first, then that would be more reasonable.Lucia Black (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unreliable sources

Leroy Douresseaux of ComicBookBin gave the manga an A stating: "It is visually potent and often inscrutable, but its sense of wonder and exploration makes its ideas still seem fresh two decades after its debut." Peter Gutiérrez of Teenreads praised the manga, writing: "In short, Ghost in the Shell is hard sci-fi of the best possible sort: the type that’s so full of both undiluted artfulness and philosophy that it’s arguably a must-read even for those who don’t usually take to the genre." Active Anime praised the manga stating, "The Ghost in the Shell is a classic manga milestone, and a very important and influential book. [sic] Incredible art and story – a Top Ten List kind of book." Read About Comics praised the artwork, however criticized the manga for it's story pacing and collection of short adventures stating, "I’m glad I got to experience Shirow’s artistic view of the future and am a little interested in the idea of his Intron Depot art books, but on the whole Ghost in the Shell was a massive shell game: flashy and fascinating from a glance, but ultimately empty when you decide to dive in."

--Niemti (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merely listing them wont help at all, i found reviews accordance to WP:ANIME/RS. What makes you consider them unreliable?

What actually should be deemed unreliable are the articles based on philosophy and World of Ghost in the Shell, unfortunately copied from wikia.Lucia Black (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

ComicBookBin, Teenreads, Active Anime - lack of articles indicates a dubious notability and self-publishing/blogging (check: Leroy Douresseaux, Peter Gutiérrez). While I'm pretty sure it was reviewed in multiple reliable sources and written about in many published books. --Niemti (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Its probably recognized as good reviews from other reliable sources, and thats why their reviews were added are considered reliable and usable. Peter Gutierrez's review actually appears multiple time, such as in graphicnovelreporter. I doubt he's self-publishing/blogging.Lucia Black (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added a New York Times review to Innocence. I'm looking for one on the manga. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this based solely on sources not having their own article and assuming that these are blogs/self publish? I think you should look at WP:ANIME/RS, they are considered reliable sources.Lucia Black (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Book_Review_Sources - no, that's not serious. Why won't you use any magazines instead? --Niemti (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Book_Review_Sources]] here's trying to cover all three. Only covering two, but looking at WP:Anime/RS, you can clearly is active anime at the top of the list with an abudance of evidence.We dont pick which reliable source we get to use. So my main question is why avoid these sources if they are completely credible?Lucia Black (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I just checked this "activeAnime" aka "Active Anime" (they can't decide on their own name): "Design : WordPress themes"; "Staff: Rommel Salandanan Founder and Adminitrator". No. They are NOT credible. And ANIME/RS is a complete joke for accepting them as a reliable source because activeAnime wrote "activeAnime has become one of the most trusted anime news sites in the world as it continues to work directly with American and Japanese companies [...] and has become one of best review sites on the Internet" about themselves (without any proof).[1] That's all. Use books (and not self-published, neither), professional magazines and/or actually respected websites. --Niemti (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? So they made a claim that can be questioned. That doesnt mean their reviews arent credible. And you're also using the fact that Founder and Administrator are one in the same? You have no basis for determining what source is credible. Here's an example: Graphicnovelreporter has the same review of petergutierez http://graphicnovelreporter.com/content/ghost-shell-vol-1-review. If you have a problem with all these sources, bring it to WP:Anime/RS. But atm, they seem perfectly credible and not to mention, have been cited in other sources such as active anime.Lucia Black (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm using the fact that the "Founder and Administrator" can't even spell the word "Administrator" (calling himself "Adminitrator", for many years) while writing an official statement about his little self-published blog, built with WordPress, and makes completely ridiculous and outlandish claims about it. Now, "the heck", start digging through books, magazines and notable websites if you want to help flesh out the article's reception section. --Niemti (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_42#Read_About_Comics_an_RS? Shows even more credibility to read about comics.Lucia Black (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The relevant discussion regarding the use of ActiveAnime as a reliable source can be found here as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And that's what I was talking about ("an Anime News Network-esque site that apparently has industry recognition. (their About Us page) It's already used in Bleach." followed by "IIRC, I've seen this used on several quality articles" and "Ditto here..." - Anime/RS is that much of a joke). --Niemti (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are some more evidence that ActiveAnime is considered reliable: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Also, please see this discussion why ComicBookBin is considered reliable. However, if you still feel that ActiveAnime, ComicBookBin, and ReadAbout Comics are unreliable, please bring this up on the project's talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you even ever see activeAnime (that's the proper name of this self-published blog of the total of 4 people), or are you just being contrarian out of your old wikistalking habits? Oh, and [6] has no word "active" anywhere. They claim they "garnered praises from within industry and amongst fans" - really? Citation needed. Btw, my first run-in with aA was there, last month (where it was questioned and rightly so). --Niemti (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the sources provided here and, to be honest, I don't follow a lot of what you've said here, your responses are usually long, rambling, condescending, and constantly being changed and revised. Activeanime cannot be used as a reliable sources for games perhaps, but they are considered reliable for anime and manga related articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you first showed a proof of their alleged "praises from within industry and amongst fans" and their "work directly with American and Japanese companies". Because these are the less wild and potentially verifiable (positively or else) claims by the blog's self-proclaimed "Founder and Adminitrator" that were the basis of the so-called "discussion" along with "someone has already used it on Wikipedia elsewhere, so it's now a reliable source". If you do, I guess it can be then possibly used alongside Publishers Weekly and such. --Niemti (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." SPS also states that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Also, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities), it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" and that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And he isn't at all an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". He describes himself as "not your typical anime fan as he enjoys anime for what it is and what is has. He has an active lifestyle outside the world of anime, and likes to follow the business aspect of the industry" (that's all).[7] Here's also his linkedln bio about his "active lifestyle outside the world of anime": [8] And it's really silly (from your side) I have to even argue about it with you even about a stupid WordPress blog by some IT guy who can't even neither spell "administrator" nor properly design a website. --Niemti (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And this stupid crap: Founded in April 30, 2004, activeAnime has become one of the most trusted anime news sites in the world as it continues to work directly with American and Japanese companies. With extensive reviews covering anime, manga, soundtracks, and more, activeAnime has garnered praises from within industry and amongst fans, and has become one of best review sites on the Internet is absolutely both "unduly self-serving" and "an exceptional claim" (and bullshit, as There are 6,600,974 sites with a better three-month global Alexa traffic rank than Activeanime.com). This is also one of the ugliest and most broken stand-alone blogs I've seen in a long, long time, and I just checked a random "review"[9] and it's not even a review at all (and another:[10] - out of 5 "reviews" that I clicked, 2 were completely fake). That is all. --Niemti (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you try to be more coherent? They make it near to impossible for anyone to decipher any actual points you have. This is an encyclopedia article, not a random assemblage of every internet commenter who has ever said something about the subject. Arguing is not going to get us anywhere fast, and as Wikipedia is not a forum, just stick to article improvements and all will be cool. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly: This is an encyclopedia article, not a random assemblage of every [I]nternet commenter who has ever said something about the subject. --Niemti (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, if you truly have concerns about activeanime or any of the contested sources above, bring it up on WP:RSN. Also, one way or the other, please remain civil in discussion and do not be disruptive. If you can't find any dead links on activeanime, please archive them. Also, please knock it off with your rants about activeanime, it does not do anything productive. Conversations that keep going on in circles like this are going to just scare off anyone that can join in, per Sergecross, and the arguments are already getting longwinded, so I think its better to continue this at RSN and stick to discussing article improvements here. With that said, I am done. This is seriously a waste of time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So, based on how I've seen some of these users argue circles over and over again, I'd recommend you taking any contested sources to WP:RSN. It would probably be quicker, quite frankly, than the arguments that are already getting longwinded and probably only just starting. When conversations go on like this, you're just going to scare off anyone from trying to jump in, which will just leave the same two parties arguing the same two points. Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've already opened a discussion about this matter over at Wikipedia:RSN#Activeanime_discussion if anyone is interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Editorial oversight?

So, at WP:VG, a lot of the time we decide if a website if reliable or not by what it says on their "About Us" page.

1. Do they have one at all?
2. Do they have an editorial oversight policy?
3. Do they have a formal staff? Is anyone actually paid, like they do it for a job/career?
4. Do they have a stated vision/purpose etc?
5. Have they been previously been used in Wikipedia articles at the GA or FA status?

Anyways, I see there's some discussion on this, but I think we need to focus on these aspects more than "Alexa Ranks" or personal anecdotes, which seem to get things off topic. I also feel we shouldn't blindly follow WP:ANIME's calls either, as some of them I checked were pretty much just a person or two saying they supported it; that's not the strongest consensus...

Anyways, I'm not really familiar with anime beyond it's overlap into video games, so I'm not sure yet, I just wanted to refocus the conversation a little... Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Off topic arguing. Largely irrelevant to topic

Agreed. While I have zero issues with using activeanime as a reliable source, per WP:UNDUE, we represent the views critiquing the work in the proportion they are held and given by the academic community of those who know that subject. Every person can have an opinion about anything, but we only care about and cover the experts opinions. I agree with Sergecross73's comment above to concentrate on the above aspects rather than "Alexa Ranks" or personal anecdotes, which seem to get things off-topic and the above discussion has been just trolling. The fact is that Niemti has been warned about misusing this talk page as a platform for his disruptive rants. Now, to get back on topic, there are a list of staffers according to activeanime's website. Rommel Salandanan is the site's founder and administrator (although there is a typo in "administrator" in their "About us" page). Holly Ellingwood is the head columnist and reviewer and there are four staff reviewers: Davey C. Jones, Sandra Scholes, Rachel Bentham, and Margaret Viera. I do not know if Activeanime has been previously used in Wikipedia articles at the GA or FA status. As for Comic Book Bin ([11]), they have a publisher, 12 writers, a news editor, an editor, an editor-in-chief and managing editor. For Teenreads ([12]), they have a founder and president. For their editorial staff, they have an editorial director, a contest coordinator, a senior writer, and an editorial director for anime and manga. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) The fact is that you have been warned about obsessively following me around and misusing various talk pages as a platform for your mania. The fact is there were no "personal anecdotes" and no "just trolling". The fact is that you wrote "With that said, I am done. This is seriously a waste of time" but it was just as dishonest as it was every time when you falsely claimed that you quit (including repeatedly officially stating you're now going to "100% break off" when you were told to quit your shit). The fact is that you started commenting here only after I did (and just 4 hours later). The fact is that it's going on non-stop for over half year already and I'm seriously sick and tired of you constantly wikihounding me without end. The fact is that now I officially tell you to stop, cease, desist and abort, and to knock off, back off, refrain, keep away. --Niemti (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Again, please stop with your off-topic personal attacks and comment on content, not contributors. I am actually telling you that your posts contain very serious problems here with regards to civility and preventative measures will be taken if you continue with this confrontational attitude, so just focus on article improvements. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Again, please stop with your off-topic personal attacks towards me and comment on content, not contributors. I am actually telling you that your posts contain very serious problems here and preventative measures will be taken if you continue with this confrontational attitude. And this was seriously the last warning. Don't you try to follow and attack me even one more time. --Niemti (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Discuss your qualms with Sjones on his talk page or an appropriate notice board, this sort of arguing was the very thing I was trying to get away from with that section break, and doesn't belong on an article talk page anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Precisely. Let's just drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse's carcass, and stick to discussing article improvements. I do not wish to be abusive towards anyone myself, but I remained civil throughout. When I said "I am done. This is seriously a waste of time", I meant that I do not want to continue fighting with others, as they are really a waste of time, and this type of arguing does not belong on an article talk page anyway. This section break is where I also wanted to try and get away from petty arguments. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) And, somehow, you failed to control yourself and to refrain from attacking me with "the above discussion has been just trolling. The fact is that Niemti has been warned about misusing this talk page as a platform for his disruptive rants." So, from now on, if you ever again follow me to attack just ONE more time, it will make it ever clear that we can't possibly coexist and preventative measures will be taken because I'm more than annoyed and just enough is enough. That is all. Don't respond to this. --Niemti (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Second attempt to refocus

Alright, so that went way off topic very quickly. Let's try this again. Sjones, please copy and paste your on-topic comments from above, removing any reference to Niemti. Niemti, do the same if there's anything on-topic to salvage from your comments above. Anything off topic will be removed instantly on the grounds of WP:NOTAFORUM. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. Per WP:UNDUE, we represent the views critiquing the work in the proportion they are held and given by the academic community of those who know that subject. Every person can have an opinion about anything, but we only care about and cover the experts opinions. As such, we should simply concentrate on the concerns provided by Sergecross73. There are a list of staffers according to activeanime's official website. Rommel Salandanan is the site's founder and administrator (although there is a typo in "administrator" in their "About us" page). Holly Ellingwood is the head columnist and reviewer and there are four staff reviewers: Davey C. Jones, Sandra Scholes, Rachel Bentham, and Margaret Viera. However, I do not really know if Activeanime has been previously used in Wikipedia articles at the GA or FA status. As for Comic Book Bin, they have a publisher, 12 writers, a news editor, an editor, an editor-in-chief and managing editor. For Teenreads, they have a founder and president. For their editorial staff, they have an editorial director, a contest coordinator, a senior writer, and an editorial director for anime and manga. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

2 reviews formerly in external links

• Crandol, Mike (18 June 2003). "Ghost in the Shell 2 Man-Machine Interface (manga)". Anime News Network. {{Query web archive|url=http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/ghost-in-the-shell-2/manga}}
• Weickert, Bianca (9 March 2011). "Ghost in the Shell 2: Manmaschine Interface". AnimePro (in German). {{Query web archive|url=http://www.animepro.de/anima/db/2584_Ghost-in-the-Shell-2-Manmaschine-Interface-manga}}

--Niemti (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mike crandol was added in a while ago. Regardless, this seems like an unrelevant topic to cover.Lucia Black (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lucia Black. This is also an irrelevant topic to cover. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This "is also a relevant topic to cover" because I just removed it from external links.[13] And stop being such a targeted contrarian. --Niemti (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Streamline

I axed as much as I felt was necessary from the adaptions and the other mentions. This is about the original mangas and will probably be arrived at from the franchise page. It makes little sense to have SAC and Arise and Innocence even on this page, but the video game and film make more sense. I tried to keep it down to the bare minimum for now and refer back the franchise page because the material is just so difficult in sorting through it. I really want these works to have their own page and be in as much depth as required because these mangas are really important. Merging this page to the franchise page is only going to be bad when the franchise page grows and fills out properly. Right now it may not be ideal, but this page is necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But Ghost in the Shell should be the manga page. It should not be considered a "manga" page. If anything, we should relegate this article to be a simple list of the chapters and volume releases. It's not useful to have two separate articles on what are essentially the same topic. And I had people agreeing with the merge on multiple other pages. I still propose that this page be merged back with Ghost in the Shell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, GITS is a franchise page, it is not about JUST the manga. Like Star Wars is not about JUST the movies. This is why you split off. Final Fantasy is not about the first game, its about the franchise. If anything with a MMO in the works, three well known existing games, 3 TV series, two movies, and derivative novels and manga, a franchise page makes more sense for GITS. Making the GITS page about the manga is undue. Simple as that. I'm trying to resolve Lucia's SS issue with having the main page be the franchise and having the in detail content on its own pages. If you are in support of removing the manga from the Wikipedia by merging or making it one with the GITS main page then what's to say that other pages like SAC shouldn't be merged in? I'd say its balance in scope, detail and readability. It isn't eye pleasing, organizationally sound or reader friendly. That's why.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who is demanding that the Ghost in the Shell article solely be a "franchise" page. There is no other manga series on this website that has so many articles dedicated to its original form. If we are going to have a page on the manga I'd rather it be on all of the print media that came out rather than just the first two novelas (and 1.5). And I find your "slippery slope" argument not convincing. Stand Alone Complex began its own series unto itself. Arise is doing the same. The films are understandably separate. What does not feel like it should be separate are the books released in Japan under the titles THE GHOST IN THE SHELL, MANMACHINE INTERFACE CONTROL PREFERENCES, and HUMAN-ERROR PROCESSOR, particularly how identical the two articles were and still are. If there's going to be a page just on the manga then it has to be on all of the manga released rather than just the three titles I listed. This page needs to have the Stand Alone Complex manga, the Tachikomatic Days manga, the Arise: Sleepless Eye manga, etc.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved back

Do not merge this again. I am moving back to everything as it was prior to the GA issue as the first BRD was supposed to be. Also WP:SIZE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted this bold move. You do not have consensus for this change. Both Lucia Black and myself oppose the split of the two articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you even editing, Chris? You said it yourself we should make edits until DRN is resolved and at this point, mediation will be the ultimate card. You suddenly get these random outbursts of bold edits (at this point it's more about "persistent" edits) and disregard consensus. We brought this at DRN for a reason.Lucia Black (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time this has happened to these pages, too, after you attempted to put the main article "under construction".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Third time actually. Long before you took notice, he demerge the article without proper consensus (and attempted to use BRD against me since I boldly split them without consensus but that edit was over a month old).Lucia Black (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And there are his actions at Talk:Dragon Ball and WT:MOS-AM. This whole concept of a "franchise" is really not helping anything. He's heralding Sailor Moon and Fullmetal Alchemist as paragons as to how "franchise articles" should be when they're just perfectly fine manga and anime articles. They discuss the manga and then have separate articles for the chapters and episodes. The only problem with Ghost in the Shell is that it has too many separate animated adaptations that are entirely unrelated to each other and per WP:MOS-AM and WP:SPLIT justify having separate articles for themselves. However there is nothing in any of the policies, not even WP:UNDUE or WP:SIZE that states that there needs to be an entirely separate article on the three graphic novels that comprise the original Ghost in the Shell, which is why this page was set up as it was after the merge that most of us agreed upon until Chris decided to go against the consensus again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SS for proper scope. If you cannot understand scope then might you look at Pokemon or Star Trek? The fact you recognize the problem of the adaptions is good, but as I noted, WP:NPOV is also about article content and the original manga is a distinct minority viewpoint when given the whole body of works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop twisting WP:NPOV to your needs. It is about keeping an article neutral and not leaning to one point of view or the other. It is does not forbid having an article discuss a single neutral topic just because you feel it should be separated. Pokémon is a multimedia franchise that exists in too many forms to discuss on a single page. Star Trek started out as a TV series that spawned other TV series, films, a few languages, and a bunch of other crap. Ghost in the Shell is a manga that has only four adaptations all based on the original. Why the hell can't you accept that the Ghost in the Shell article should be about the manga, much like the Sailor Moon and FMA articles are set up, and then have various articles branching off from it? What is so god damn special about these three books that requires an entire separate article set up for them? You have yet to explain that. Everything is just FRANCHISE FRANCHISE FRANCHISE FRANCHISE coming from you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rework

I believe this should revert to the manga section, this "list of chapters" does not meet STANDALONE coverage in absence of a notable article. Given the greater scope I will restore the article and focus on Shirow's original works on this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Explain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we spent several weeks trying to come to a fucking consensus. You can see above the exacerbation you caused because you would not back down from your opinion that this article should be about the manga and only the manga and Ghost in the Shell should be some centralized article like Gundam. You are not going to do this again. Chapter lists exist across the project for manga series. There is no reason this should be different and there's no amount of throwing acronyms or wikipedia shortcut names at me or Lucia Black or anyone else on this project that can convince me that you should remove everything primarily about the manga from Ghost in the Shell, put it back on this page, and then restore the completely unnecessary Ghost in the Shell (manga) article. This page has 21 references. And WP:STANDALONE does not even cover this so yet again you are quoting policy that hs no bearing on this particular page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that it couldn't even pass AFC when Lucia tried to get it through I think that says quite a bit about it. The list of chapters is not sufficiently long enough to merit a stand alone. I respect the decisions of the past. The issue was never resolved and being stubborn about it will just have me bring it back to DRN. The Ghost in the Shell page is was and should be a topic page, the manga deserves its own page under N and GNG. That's the requirement for inclusion, you will not engage in unilateral removals, you know procedure and you robbed me of that. I intend to get these articles to GA and you are preventing improvements to the encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's happening, but if it's about restoring "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" article, i'm going to oppose. If it's not, then please clarify. Other than that, i don't want to rehash the same issue.Lucia Black (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

One article, this article. Clear enough for you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So the same argument? the article already has it's own page.Lucia Black (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. This page should cover the manga. One page on the manga. No separate list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

same argument, you're not going to move anyone here. if this was about merging the list back to the main article, i would be more onboard as the list is too small, and just redundant info based from the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I take that as support. Good. It was the obvious answer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, i don't support a GITS manga and franchise page.Lucia Black (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

But N does support separate articles and the current scope of the topic is terribly poor and lacking the 30 entries in any meaningful context for readers. A single page on the three Shirow works does not seem unreasonable, but there is the other mangas and the novels to deal with as well. What about those then? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly, unless two separated articles would be redundant, there's no point in "splitting". We've discussed this COUNTLESS of times, how is it that theres simply no point in arguing? Splitting, would only be redundant and you know why. This isn't about paying respect to the gits franchise, it's about making the best articles. Splitting, will only cause too extremely similar articles. there would be no point to split if they end up too similar (the only difference would be, the franchise page would have less manga info, and the manga page would have more, but there will still be mentioning of the same stuff.

You still don't see it how we see it. Not all manga with the Ghost in the shell brand on it are directly related. It's too easy to interpret. If Ghost in the Shell franchise was divided by 3 different entries such as Ghost in the Shell A series, Ghost in the Shell B series, and Ghost in the Shell C series, and had multiple media with the same type, we wouldn't divide that media by "media" but by "series". which is why i'm still not approving the new navbox organization. If i could, i would organize it in similar fashion to template:Blood: The Last Vampire. But i'm not going to do this all over again, last time you gave up on the issue.Lucia Black (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually took the issue up with other editors and they agreed that a manual of style cannot impose restrictions on article creation. You avoid RELART and other policies to assert your "this is how things work" which fall flat. Under N you could put individual books because they all meet N. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a good example how different books do not need to be needlessly combined. I could actually get the original manga this much detail without really trying. Same for the second. Even 1.5 made the best seller list. Am I asking for that, no, but it would not be unheard of. If you prefer I could make one on the original and see how far that goes? After all, it is the most famous of them all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding anything. WP:RELART is talking about related topics that will inevitably mention one over the other (Napolean and his wife. Two different people but will inevitably have significant ammount of info related to it). It's like Motoko Kusanagi and The Puppeteer/Puppet Master. The information to "Ghost in the Shell" manga is core development and plot related info to the entire franchise (if there were to be an article to be made). That, and i don't exactly "trust" you with building a "franchise" page for Ghost in the Shell, as last time you wanted an entire "music" section to unrelated series. Same with manga's unrelated to eachother being under one section. The entire "franchise" was organized as if it was a single series but multi-series.

That and there's also the fact, that all it will be is compilation of all GITS info we already have in their respected page. SO any "NEW" info that covers the entire franchise, is hardly likely to be found (and i know this by looking for info myself). this argument is redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I will create it anyways and do as done on DBZ, that way you can see it before it goes out. Once it does, I will not accept any form of reverting, it has to go through AFD. Okay. I am sick and tired of being spat on by your limitations. You may think there is not enough material, but you are not going to pre-emptively limit me and control my actions. I wanted this as my first GA or FA and to pay honor to the passing of the figure responsible for bringing enjoyment to hundreds of thousands of fans. I'm going to do my absolute best to ensure that this is GA level by Shirow's birthday and FA level by the one year anniversary of Toren's passing. Ideally, main page. If you and I will not agree on anything, then that is a shame. You and I stand far apart in terms of knowledge and resources; your inability to find sources for the content are not the same as mine. I'm planning on getting more anime to GA and FA level... It'd be nice to have this as one of them. Even the entirety, because this one was my leap from Akira. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

NOw you're just talking bias, and unprofessional.Lucia Black (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Look, you "barely" got away with DBZ because there were more active editors who've supported the split than those who opposed (regardless if you consider it local consensus or not). this is not the case here. No one else has commented in this subject. So if you do split, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CONSENSUS, will be considered vandalism.Lucia Black (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It would not be vandalism. And I can bring this matter to a larger audience, which I intend to do. And if you recall six other editors weighed in, you were in the minority from that point. Your battleground attitude and desire to continue to argue is sad, it saps time for good contributions. I will deal with this matter, you thought you "defeat"ed me, but this is not a battle. Your stance as such is really disappointing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're still talking about DBZ, i was not the "minority", i was only the very few active debater in the discussion. You did not let things cool down to gain a "new" consensus, despite assuming you did. Regardless, my attitude has nothing to do with this. we've discussed this hundreds of times. I thought this endless discussion was over. whether i associate it with defeat and victory is none of my concern. Often times it's just a loose saying i use. If i "win" it's nothing personal against who i portray as "lose" or "defeat". STill, it is still vandalism if you have no consensus now to do such a thing. Ryulong, and I are still against this. At this point, all i can ask for is mediation.Lucia Black (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In both aspects, but mediation might be an option, because you will have to accept the matter. It will take a lot of time, though, but if you are thinking of this in such a way, I suppose it is probably a time saver. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

good. now i can relax, and not get fully involved in a heated debate.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have plenty of things to do besides get into that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go through this since it seems to have trailed off topic. I understand the suggestion that this article is to be merged to Ghost in the Shell due to it's small amount of length and content; this was similar to the discussion at FLCL on it's episode list. Personally, I agree with this. It isn't that big of a deal on having the chapter list on the main article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FLCL was a factor in it, but I rather have this page become a page dedicated to the manga rather than disturb what is essentially a topic level overview of the subject. So much of the content on the manga was already lost, but so much exists on the manga and the manga itself is notable. I could do individual articles on each of the three mangas if need be, simply because of the bulk of interviews, production notes, localization and other details that exist. Though for now a single page dedicated to the three works would be the major improvement. Ghost in the Shell 2 is not really a sequel to the original manga. (Shirow's own words.) And the development is really interesting for how it was produced, I got the original interviews from Toren, they are important and I want them included. It helps understand the work, but I am not certain on a few publications about the philosophy, symbolism and sexuality of GITS because I haven't peer reviewed it yet to check the sources and details surrounding it. A few reviews are promising, enough to take its place for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, you have to stop seeking Ghost in the Shell to become a "topic level overview page" or a "franchise page" or whatever other term you've come up with to try to make your opinion more valid. DragonZero, Chris wants to take all of the information solely dedicated to the manga located at Ghost in the Shell, move it to this page, and change this page to a "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" article, which it was prior to a series of discussions we had in April of this year when both "Ghost in the Shell" and "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" were more or less identical in content. Now he is just looking for excuses to add content just about the manga to make a better argument for a page just about the manga separate from a page that also includes information about the 1995 movie, its 2004 halfish sequel, the 2002 TV series, the current OVA/film series, and the various video games. This is honestly how every single page about an anime and manga property is set up but Chris you have had this bug up your butt about keeping everything separate and having separate pages for everything. This is why you got WP:MOS-AM changed so you could have a reason to make a new Dragon Ball Z page. Stop looking to flesh out this page into a separate article on the manga and instead all this information about interviews, philosophy, sexuality, and symbolism to the main Ghost in the Shell article and allow this page to be just about the chapter and graphic novel releases.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. I'm assuming this might be like the last discussion so this will be my last comment here. Try adding onto Ghost in the Shell before moving onto this idea; Currently, the amount of information as is, probably won't be enough to justify it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it will be the last discussion unless Chris somehow manages to convince a large enough group of people that his idea is better than the current status quo, as he had done over at Dragon Ball to make Dragon Ball Z. I thought the discussion had ended in April, but now he's come back to rehash everything now that there's nothing on WP:MOS-AM to be in his way.

Chris, whatever you're planning on adding to a "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" page just swallow your pride and add it to Ghost in the Shell. Hell, deal with Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell and try to merge it with the main article. There is no reason to gut Ghost in the Shell to make a manga-only page, as I have been telling you for months now. Just because you no longer have to focus on Dragon Ball Z does not mean you can put all your time and energy into turning this page into the way you think is best.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your OWNERSHIP of the matter and the grudge displayed is insulting here. The amount of content the two of you purge to maintain it is sickening, you can't even get the plot right because of it. I have no desire to be confined. You ignore any improvements not under my name in other topic areas, but come down on mine like a ton of bricks. The bad faith attacks and effort to drive editors away is obvious. Back to DRN we go! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lovely. Another venue for me and Lucia to tear apart your weak arguments as to why Ghost in the Shell should not include any detailed information about the three original graphic novels and instead have everything located on this page and move it back to "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" with your invalid citation of policies and guidelines that have no bearing on this article and refusing to acknowledge the opinions of at least 3 people who do not think your plan is a very good idea. Let's see how that pans out, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And enlighten me. What has been "purged"? Do you not understand that we do not need to give that much of a detailed discussion of the plot here and do you know how difficult it is to write about something when you haven't had the chance to read it yourself and all you have to work on is a bunch of really shitty summaries originally found on this page and elsewhere on the internet? Maybe instead of complaining that things are bad, fix them yourself, but don't unilaterally go against the wishes of other editors. Since March you've been complaining that the plot information isn't exactly right, but you have never fixed it and are instead using these apparent mistakes as evidence that only you are right and Lucia and I are wrong and that you should be allowed to make "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". There is nothing preventing you from adding the information about symbolism, philosophical implications, and sexuality to Ghost in the Shell other than your sole insistence that it should be on this page and this page should be titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)".—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The mangas should not be at Ghost in the Shell, secondly reception, the interviews, Masamune's inspiration and detail on its creation, all are important to the mangas. This has been stripped. Your out of process unilaterial removes barring AFD or merge requests are against community practice. You attack what I want to do, but are ignorant of the subject and never even read the materials. Who are YOU to decide where things go, I'm not going to wreck another page to prove a point, that's POINTY and I am not falling for it. Last time the content was wiped out anyways. Your arguments are not rooted in policy and sound logic because you know nothing about the works, and Lucia even expresses that her research says their is no sources for philosophy, sexuality, symbolism or anything. And I proved otherwise. Your opposition is just anger manifested at what you thought was once valid. MOS-AM cannot restrict content, period. You acting like it still exists is problematic, it never should have been argued. You avoid AFD and other venues to enforce your own arguements, the move was controversial, and you never should have done it. Driving other commentators away does not help yourself, because you two are in the minority. Bring it to DRN and stick to policy, please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is all, again, you being blinded by your insistence that all that information, which is currently located at Ghost in the Shell, should be on its own separate page. AFDs and merge requests are not required to do merges. It's not my fault I didn't read these books and I can't write shit about their plot. And there are simply no policies or guidelines that exist that cover anything that either of us want to do, despite your knowledge of WP abbreviations (which you constantly misquote and misuse). But if you demand that I quote some policy that validates my opinion, then take a look at WP:AVOIDSPLIT. For you, there is nothing in any policy or guideline that says "remove all details from an article regarding the original aspect of that article's subject to create a separate second and smaller article just on that one aspect". There is no page on just the manga of Sailor Moon or the anime of Fullmetal Alchemist outside of chapter and episode lists, so why should GITS be treated any different? My opposition to this plan is not a grudge against you, but I am most definitely exasperated that you constantly try to revisit this and make everything the way you think is best. And I've left my comments at the DRN.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Every time I add information it is removed, pardon me if I want to waste my time dealing with two people who know nothing about the work, and at least Lucia's actual insertion of false material. I should not have to deal with such misinformation, at ANY point in this matter, yet I have to. Let's put it this way, even the plot of the manga is stupid and doesn't match the book. The second is NOT a sequel persay, even Shirow mentioned this in the original Toren interviews. The matter of censorship itself was cut down, the alterations for localization are "unnecessary" on this "original media" focus page and absolutely nothing regarding the whole work is really done despite plenty of information being on the DVDS, IG's website and other places. I may not have enough about GREE, but I can at least mention it. Heck, we don't even got the pachinko issue covered, it doesn't qualify for its own article, but it is something I'd expect. AVOIDSPLIT opens with, "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." - The topics meet N and GNG, so nice try, but N and GNG are the burden for inclusion as a separate article, you are trying to have me prove a negative. Considering you admit the topics meet N and GNG, your opposition is toothless. Same as DBZ. The walled garden of the project is disruptive and limits the scope and function of Wikipedia. With over 30 titles in Ghost in the Shell, you need a page that lays out the material. Harry Potter is a GA level the overview, and the individual books have their own GA articles (except for 1) that cover it in detail. While I don't think I can get philosophy to a FA like how the taskforce got Religious debates over the Harry Potter series to FA, I want to make the effort. However all this fighting has ruined our coverage, our scope, even the actual summaries and details are wrong. The page as it stands is representative of editors who do not truly "know" the material, much less be experts on it. It is one of Wikipedia's strongest criticisms and it is immediately valid because 60,000+ people a month see something that isn't accurate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My slight mistake about film continuity aside doesn't really matter, nor should the fact that I haven't read these books prevent me from performing custodial duties concerning page layout.

Anyway, you've never fully answered me as to why Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should not be about the manga first and foremost, with WP:SS allowed discussion of these "30 titles" you constantly bring up. All you've ever done is attempt to point to "franchise pages" or "topic level overview pages", when per AVOIDSPLIT there is no need for this level of separation. The manga does pass WP:N and WP:GNG so therefore it has an article, being the one titled "Ghost in the Shell". Why do you need "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" to make all of these expansions? Just put it on "Ghost in the Shell". And if the summaries are wrong fix them already and stop making excuses. What we have here isn't a walled garden either. This is a walled garden.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop yelling. Manga passes N and GNG. And every expansion I do gets axed, I'm sick of adding things only to have it removed as being "overly detailed" or whatever. N and GNG is met, it deserves an article. You can't remove it as "overly detailed" than. Answer me straightly and stop being dramatic. Remain calm and be civil, you and Lucia have already shown that you say one thing and do another in the "expansion" aspect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll stop yelling once you get off your butt and fix these alleged errors you keep pointing out. And yes, the subject does pass WP:N and WP:GNG, and it gets an article called "Ghost in the Shell", not "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". And I cannot find one mention of "rv overly detailed" in the history of Ghost in the Shell. All I see is you and I edit warring over my merge of the two pages and then the partial unmerge to make this one here which covers all of the physical release information. Everything else you have suggested could be added could be briefly mentioned in some form on "Ghost in the Shell" and it does not require making "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" or "Ghost in the Shell (series)" to do so. The only thing preventing you from adding this information is yourself because you refuse to do so on the version that other people have agreed upon. I bet that you can't wait to histmerge your sandbox with whatever article you are planning to create, as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Being rude and uncivil is one thing, but just answer this one question for now. How does the mangas (Shirow's mangas to be specific) not meet N or GNG? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said they didn't. I've been telling you that they already have an article and that one is called "Ghost in the Shell".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The individual ones. The first GITS, 2 and 1.5. By convention these could all have articles. If I add the material, it will bloat the article to 2100 words for plot. Another 1000 words on releases. Another 1500 on translation and localization. Then another bunch on criticism. Shirow's comments on the individual works will also be included for perspective, but this will ruin the flow of the page. You will become even more upset if I do it and promptly chop it when it should be on its own page. I want to resolve this issue, asap. But everytime my work is axed out I get irritated because it would be perfectly fine on its own page. It is a catch 22 and I am sick of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Each one separately? I would say no because at some point that was already decided and the 2.0 and 1.5 pages were merged with what was the original "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" page. And there is your first problem. We do not need to bloat the article with any more plot summary than there already is per WP:PLOT. So long as we give the basic information on the central storylines that should be fine. Anything more detailed should likely go on the individual characters' pages or the character list. Release information should be summarized at Ghost in the Shell but focused here, where it currently is. Translation of just the manga would probably be best on this page. Any of Shirow's discussion of the work would be best at Ghost in the Shell or his own article. At this stage is better to improve upon what we have rather than going for this ambitious project you have in your head. For starters, maybe we can flesh this article out better to include the SAC manga and the Arise Sleepless Eye serialization.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gah. See, plot is very important here. More so than most mangas. The critical analysis alone requires plenty more to give proper context on the work itself. We have entire sections of books dedicated to it, while I don't see any individual title dealing with a singular work, numerous lengthy essays go into detail about it. Your desire to place material relevant to the work on its creators page is a bad idea, because it is best served on the article's page. And not on a topic level page. You don't seem to understand this facet at all. Anyways... I suppose sandboxing it would be best because I don't intend to absolutely and thoroughly wreck any article to prove a point. There is such a disparity in what I see versus what you see; perhaps pointing it out at this point does little because I don't have 20 hours to type a lecture on it... well... perhaps I do, but you wouldn't be inclined to even read such a document and then you will call it OR... It'd be easier and shorter to just publish the damn essay and peer review it to Mach... but the paper is due at the end of this year with potential publication in mid-2014 assuming the standard editorial process... Bah. Too many 'if's for me, I'll be damned if this goes on another 6 months let alone a year just to establish expertise on this particular show to you in a meaningful way. And by then I guess it would mean a COI, even if I stick to the original sources from which material is drawn! My work at COC speaks for itself, but I doubt you have even seen it... but if you pardon the tangent, I must say that Cliff Hanger's voice overs were terrible, I liked playing the game very much and I hope to make available my images for Wikipedia. I got lucky, it was in prime condition or restored - assuming the latter at this point. (Totally worth the trip alone to get the shots) I'll try and track down the GITS ones for some images, but I don't know where one even is at this point. Since GREE's work doesn't meet N, I was hoping this article could take it. Any objections or do I need to explain further? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. The plot may be convoluted but we do not need to go into extensive detail on it on Wikipedia. The creation of the manga works best on both Masamune Shirow and Ghost in the Shell. We just do not need to have a separate article just dedicated to the manga. Fullmetal Alchemist only has chapter and episode lists. Sailor Moon only has chapter and episode lists, as well as a page dedicated to that live action version and one for the stage musicals. There has been nothing you have said that sets Ghost in the Shell apart from these other works of fiction other than your very obvious interest in it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We are building an encyclopedia here at Wikipedia, and that means far more than your preference for minimal content. You care nothing about the actual value of the information presenting, care nothing for accuracy of the plot and have absolutely no idea about any of the reasons why it is important, nor do you seem to care. Plot summaries should be balanced with other sections, this I can easily do. You bring other articles up, but those are far from perfect, I don't think either of them are even close to being FA and plot summaries are something which are not very important. I'm not wanting a split to expand a plot summary, its all the other material I have. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why i didn't want a list of chapters to begin with. it's making things half way. and when people do things half-way, it leaves room for redundant disputes to come back. Ryulong, i suggest we merge the list of chapters back to the main ghost in the shell. It's not as big as you make it out to be and it'll make a stronger case to not make a ghost in the shell manga and article.Lucia Black (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging would serve to cut the discussion, so you will have to copy and paste it over. You forgot to sign and I'm not signing for you. Also. As you no doubt can tell I am working on expanding the movie out with its production details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging, would solve the issue of whether we keep the list of chapters separate from the main list. And i would never ask anyone to sign in for me. And if you improve Ghost in the Shell (film) production details, that would be great! but no one has to be an "expert" on the series to fix general layouts, merges and splits. A franchise page would only be glorified compilation of all the articles we already have such as Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex media, and Ghost in the Shell Arise media. This is basically the exact same situation as the Blood series that encompasses Blood: The Last Vampire series, Blood+ and Blood-C where they each have their different plots however share the same character "saya" and "david".Lucia Black (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Good. It helps my argument. Don't back out now that I said that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You saying "it helps" your argument isn't true. Because A) Despite their being a confirmed "Blood" series, there is no "Blood" series article. However, there are Blood+, and Blood-C articles that encompass their own respected media. There is no glorified article separate from Blood: The Last Vampire (original work) and Blood series.

Again, a franchise page will only be a glorified compilation of the articles we already have and it'll do little difference compared to having "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" separately. the difference will be extremely minimal.Lucia Black (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fine, are you commenting at DRN or are you avoiding it? You were notified, I await your response. I will only deal with you there from now on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, DRN won't solve anything (the countless times you've dragged editors there from their busy schedule just to get your way). So, i still expect some editors to put in their opinion if it doesn't work out.Lucia Black (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What we should ideally do here is also add the SAC manga chapters and whatever Arise Sleepless Eye is doing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That would add more weight to the chapter list, and not have much need to merge or split a manga/franchise article.Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added most of the info that i gathered in the proposed article, all it needs is Arise info, and someone who has extensive knowledge to fill in the chapter lists. I ordered the first volume, so it'll take upto a week or so for it to come in.Lucia Black (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)