Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Volunteer coordinating this discussion has gone walkabout. Options are to return back to the talk page for more discussion or to enter into Formal Mediation. It is strongly suggested that no discussion or action take place until all editors are able to discuss the problem (i.e. Topic bans have expired). Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A page titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" existed for years. Ultimately, Lucia Black improved the page, merged it without discussion and changed the long standing topic page to be about the manga. It culminated in this.[1] I opposed. The problem was resolved until April when Ryulong decided to join in and redo the merge without discussion and eliminate the page without AFD. 6 different editors chimed in, even recently some have expressed a favor for two different pages. *Note - Removed comments about those involved, focus is on content -
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
7 months on talk pages, RFCs, and once at DRN which ballooned to such a size no one would take it so I had to close it for another discussion which ended when Lucia Black started a deletion campaign that I had to bring to the WP:VPP to stop.
Other arguments they made had gone to VPP, notably removing the Manual of Style's "guideline" which says not to create different topics on different media regardless of their notability or size.
How do you think we can help?
Resolve this by adhering to policy and not "rhetoric". The Ghost in the Shell mangas, each individual one qualifies for their own article. Enough material exists do to three such pages, but I am asking for a single page to cover the three works produced by Masamune Shirow. Per N, per SPLIT, and per DETAIL. This is the burden for inclusion for which neither Lucia Black or Ryulong will argue. If it helps, I've begun working on a sandboxed version to show how such an article will appear.
Opening comments by Ryulong
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
ChrisGualtieri's summary of this dispute has once again devolved into a "me vs. them" approach. I had tried to reach a consensus or compromise with him, but he refused at all stages unless his "franchise page"/"top level subject page" approach was the one we went with. Not even the creation of List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from Ghost in the Shell (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a compromise is good enough, it seems. As it stands, Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) resembles other manga and anime articles in that it is about the original work of fiction (the graphic novels) and details on the various animated and video game adaptations are relegated to their own articles. There is no article on this project that closely resembles his proposed concept.
And once again, ChrisGualtieri is resorting to his tactic of mis-citing Wikipedia shortcuts as evidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong because they don't cite anything and they should not be allowed to argue their point without abbreviations. WP:AFD is no way a requirement when merging pages. WP:N says nothing about the creation of two separate pages on similar topics, and certainly not "move everything about the main aspect of a topic off of one page to make a page identical to the first but lacking all information about related topics". WP:SPLIT isn't a policy or guideline so it does not govern anything. WP:DETAIL would only work in his proposed "franchise page" format, and anyway most of the details are on the chapter list page so I don't see the problem. If anything, ChrisGualieri should read WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:CFORK to see why his proposal is an issue.
On Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters#Rework, ChrisGualtieri has proposed several new aspects to cover and those would gladly be welcomed. But he is refusing to write about them because he wants his way in the article set up first.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Lucia Black
Must i be dragged here every time this editor wants his way? Splitting the main article from the original media is pointless and unnecessary. What the franchise page will really be about is a glorified compilation of all the works that have been done. And there is no need for one. The main reason why we wouldn't need one is because there are multi-media series within said "franchise". for example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex encompasses TV series (original), OVA adaptation, video game spin offs, novel spin offs, and manga adaptation while Ghost in the Shell: Arise encompasses OVA (original) and manga adaptation. They all share the same media range but in different series, it would be too difficult to encompass those multi-media series without focusing on the original media that started it all, because if it didn't, all media would be merged indiscriminately rather than focusing on the media that influenced from the original work the most.
Not only that but splitting them will only be too redundant and similar between Ghost in the Shell (manga) and the Ghost in the Shell franchise. Ghost in the Shell manga article will still have to cover its film adaptations, it's alternate retelling TV series (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex) and it's prequel (Ghost in the Shell: Arise). The only minor difference is the franchise page will be a glorified compilation of info we already have in other articles "except" with less manga, while the manga will have more. But the differences are too small to split. They all share the same characters, and some even the same plot.
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Ryulong, what are the proposed several new aspects to cover and those would gladly be welcomed that ChrisGualtieri made? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this comment, he mentions philosophy and symbolism and sexuality and all of that would be fine additions to any of the articles, but as far as I'm aware he will not add this information unless there is an article solely dedicated to just the graphic novels so he can expound upon these details in a "franchise" or "topic level" article on the whole series, which I feel is unnecessary, as did Lucia Black, but she is now banned from all anime pages and even conversing with ChrisGualtieri.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You won't even so much as comment on the sources, the layout and you completely avoid WP:SUMMARY. Stick to policy, and do not say I am not adding material, because every addition results in immediate reverting and deletions. [2][3]. Ryulong even makes major error in this alteration.[4] The deliberate marginalization and limitation is the crux of the problem. Given how Ryulong has started the exact same thing at NGE during this DRN has resulted in even more problems. Inclusion is N and GNG, broad coverage of GITS is acceptable under WP:SUMMARY and the fact that the splits for the manga have resulted in views nosediving to 1/60th despite containing a sizable chunk of data shows how bad Ryulong's definition of "compromise" is. Topic level article, manga article. Not a synthesis of the two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Chris's talk page I mentioned my issues with these edits. He added an unnecessarily high level of detail to a minimal aspect of the page by naming and linking to the director twice, adding the main cast twice, and adding an overly detailed plot summary, particularly when he added specific names of plot elements that aren't needed outside of the article on the actual film. And what "error" is there in this edit, Chris? He constantly accuses me of adding in wrong information without explicitly saying what is wrong and refuses to fix it himself and he constantly uses the words "deletion" or "marginalization".
I am approaching this from the general reader's point of view. When someone wants Ghost in the Shell, they want the manga first or maybe Stand Alone Complex. They do not want to see a page that just lists everything that is Ghost in the Shell through which they have to bog through to get to the page that has the actual information they want. The information on List of Ghost in the Shell characters would not belong on any primary topic's article. The general reader does not care about the Cyberdelics box set, Chris. Nor do they care about the Neon Genesis Evangelion themed pachinko game. And I have not made these edits to the Evangelion pages yet. I have proposed that they be done.
Chris is part of a small group of editors who have taken it upon themselves to become anime experts and produce several standalone pages on aspects of the release that they believe deserve standalone pages but they just end up being redundant to the pages that previously existed. You (Chris) want to have a minimum of 3 pages on a topic (franchise, anime, manga, possibly individual character pages) when one page and several standalone lists (anime+manga, chapter list, episode list, character list) would suffice and have sufficed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to content and stop your ad hom attacks. You added "generally" to the plot of the film. Which makes it inaccurate. 6 other users expressed their input on GITS topic-level. Even NGE has three editors pointing out policy and best practices. Neither here nor there do you address the concerns and valuable time is wasted as a result. You opt to create more articles and lose clarity and meaning on all of the pages as a result. A reader is more than capable of clicking on the relevant material they want or specifying their target. A range of media use the titles - the film may be the desired work, or maybe the video game, maybe the MMO, maybe the novels, etc. I am still waiting a policy backed response to my arguments, I will not accept any more circular "rhetoric". Its gone on for months. Make your case already and stick to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying I'm wrong because I use a single word you disagree with? And you refuse to be swayed unless I can pick a Wikipedia shortcut out of my ass that proves my point? Franchise pages are unnecessary for Ghost in the Shell and Evangelion. You only want to add every single aspect of something to a page despite the fact it's not necessary to go into that much detail. WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NOT both cover this in regards to Ghost in the Shell. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determines which article is best suited to be the non-disambiguated title for Evangelion. Your recent additions to that article were also superfluous at best. It is not necessary to describe Death(True), Death(True)2, and Revival in the WP:SS guided entries on the article as it stands, not to mention it would all better fit on the anime page like the Japanese Wikipedia has things set up. Also I fail to see how anything I've said here or elsewhere is ad hominem. You constantly say I'm attacking you without pointing anything out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer's note: I'm not joining in this discussion except to respond the following inquiry made at my user talk page:
Since you are a DRN expert and the content dispute problem has gone on for months, could you please advise in what to do? Ideally, I'd like some third party to be a mediator in the GITS content dispute because the problem has continued to get worse. I am repeatedly attacked and insulted, my arguments go unanswered by someone who offers "rhetoric" and not policy, and is in the minority both on arguments and numbers. This problem needs to end, I am exhausted with the rampant out of process deletions of notable articles and the smashing together of entire topics in poorly covered and disjointed organization. Given the mounting tensions a go-between and mediator is really needed at this point. Please advise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to recuse myself, I think, due to past interactions with the editors involved, but I will say that I think that Lucia Black's 3-month topic/interaction ban starting August 1 has made this temporarily more complicated rather than less. The problem is that any resolution which might be worked out during that time could very easily be challenged by Lucia when and if she returns. My recommendation, though I'll defer to Ebe123 as the lead volunteer in this matter for a final recommendation, would be for everyone to drop the stick until that ban has passed and until we can see if Lucia comes back (or has continued editing in the interim) and then to file an application for mediation at the Mediation Committee. That forum is particularly well suited for working out complex issues such as this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept that. It is probably for the best, unless I get something very strongly worked out with Ryulong. Even then, Lucia could challenge as you mentioned. Three months of sandboxing is in my future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're post-poning it for 3 months? Sounds good, sandbox your perfect article in Userspace and Lucia Black could join the discussion. Some advice, Chris, do not talk about Ryulong or anyone about doing attacks. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not have this thing dragged out into more and more bureaucracy, as Chris has stated he feels is the inevitable result of all of this mess in the ongoing discussion regarding another set of articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the GITS matter should revert to the pre-dispute status quo as per the normal pattern of events. This means a page on the notable manga - and just the manga, not the 30 other titles in the GITS scope. At least I could GAN it then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is nothing that is preventing you from building up Ghost in the Shell as an article about the manga to make it a GA candidate other than your insistence that "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" exist to host this information. Expand upon the topics you say you are going to here. You don't need a page just about the manga for that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you prevent me from making such improvements, reverting them out time and time again.[5] I'll just make an article on just the first book. Since that meets N and GNG, and I can provide the full articles content quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my issues with that. It was an unnecessarily redundant expansion to a section that does not need to be expanded. You wrote the director's name and cast members' names twice when once would suffice for just the director. There does not need to be any more separate articles on anything on this topic and doing so will just be disruptive and going against what has previously been determined.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was never resolved, you were in the minority and you forced the changes anyways and accused me of "edit warring" when I reverted it and pointed out that no consensus existed. Given that a majority expressed a preference for separate pages and the fact it remained as such for years and the article unquestionably meets N and GNG, the proper page should exist for the time being. The reason why would be your reluctance in taking part in the dispute resolution process and I want a binding resolution which will end the debate. Your stance has been contested in the same exact manner at the mirror argument of NGE. You use my desire for high quality articles as a reason why my views should be discounted. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not remove content which meets all stand alone requirements. The tactic is the same, avoid the previous commentator and focus on the only who stands against it. As expressed at Ghost in the Shell and the current NGE dispute, no consensus exists at minimum, but turning it into "us vs you" is improper and ACWC expressed the same sentiment about it and offered an alternative compromise. Izno and Gwern made very good arguments and I believe my own unanswered arguments were also strong, but they are dismissed as "incoherent". This was done to the same extent at GITS, where Niemti, Dragonzero expressed a clear and continued desire for the franchise and made an argument for the previous status quo. With comments in agreement from editors like Rapunzel-bellflower citing Dragonzero's stance. Even before we get into mediation about the arguments value themselves, the merger was highly contested and never should have been done. Claimed it was "being bold" and you were reverted, but quickly reimplemented it.[6] You make it 2 vs 1, but that's not consensus either nor was it an accurate account of the sides. Give the whole situation, there is no reason to not remake the manga article because the likelihood of mediation being accepted is low. Per policy, the article can stand and should exist until otherwise by AFD, because no party can honestly claim that the manga does not meet N or GNG. I just ask that policy and community backed guidelines be followed. A&M's "local consensus" for removing notable topics is dead, but clearly several members intend to keep it in play, despite a large and clear consensus against it having been made at the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are separate pages once again. You just won't accept that they're not the exactly named separate pages that you want them to be and that your views are not held by the majority of the anime and manga editing community. You constantly use the claim that the article meets N and GNG to explain a reason for separating it from a discussion of similar topics when the topic should be the main topic and other topics ancillary to itself. These "franchises" are never supported by reliable sources. The parts are but the franchise does not exist outside of the context of making a new article on Wikipedia. Lucia and I held that belief in regards to GITS. Folken, myself, and several other editors at A&M do feel the same for Evangelion. And I thought that the whole debacle with the creation of Dragon Ball Z showed that even though you managed to change the manual of style you did not yet have consensus to make the changes you so dearly wanted on the article. It was only after a consensus was formed that the article was created. And with GITS you had two separate editors independently come to the conclusion to merge the page. It was only the actions taken during your GA reviewing that restored the separate pages the first time around. And there were multiple times in the discussion of the merge where various editors opposing the change went "You know, this sounds like a good idea let's see how it plays out" until you on multiple times changed your mind and went to restore the status quo.
I would gladly welcome expansions to Ghost in the Shell on the various topics you state here but you have not made them yet. In your expansions to the article it's to the sections that don't require it in what seems to be a way to back up your plans of separating the manga off to its own page and turning the Ghost in the Shell page into a franchise page. Franchise pages do not work for works of fiction like Ghost in the Shell or Neon Genesis Evangelion. They are not franchises, and particularly not in the same vein as Halo or Harry Potter, where you've had things with continuity released one after the other. Your arguments towards the franchise set up are always the same explanation of there being X amount of items that carry the original subject's name when more than half of them are not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia as standalone pages, and out of those nearly all of them should be discussed within the context of other media. A Stand Alone Complex MMORPG should ideally not be discussed in regards to Ghost in the Shell as a whole but just as part of the Stand Alone Complex series. An advertising campaign collaboration between Pizza Hut and Evangelion 3.0 should not be discussed as a part of the whole of Evangelion but a part of 3.0. These don't deserve coverage as franchises. They are rarely if ever discussed as franchises. They are discussed as a piece of fiction that spawned other works of fiction.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is really simple. It meets N or GNG, it can have its own article. A franchise is: "A brand name under which a series of products is released."[7] I pointed to multiple reliable sources which list them as a franchise; the material is all related to Shirow's original idea and under Japanese law, Shirow has the right to control the works and a collection of other artists and writers have made sanctioned derivative works and published them as official GITS media. As noted in comments about FMA, that page is horrendous and does nothing for FMA's anime counterparts. I advance the argument that it meets inclusion and the material deserves a place on Wikipedia. The merge was contested and had no consensus; it should not ever have been done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it does and that's why it's at Ghost in the Shell, and partly at List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. Your only issue is that there isn't a page called "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" for you to write out your thesis on it (at least from what I can tell in what you've been saying to me), producing a content fork of the main article. The only reason it was separate in the first place was because there were extremely short articles on 2 and 1.5 that were merged with 1. And everything else you point out as a franchise page (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.) is about sequential series of things. Anime articles have a standard format and right now Ghost in the Shell and Evangelion break that format for no apparent reason. There's nothing that makes them special other than the pedestals they have been put on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to your RFC that forced MOS:AM to change then I believe you're wrong. The layout of articles is still part of that MOS and while Ghost in the Shell now meets those guidelines, Neon Genesis Evangelion does not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its as transporterman said, this should be dropped until the topic-ban is over. as in, no controversial edits related to this DRN as i was already involved prior to the topic-ban. that is all i'm saying on the subject.Lucia Black (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, The ghost in the shell franchise is of course absolutely linear, singular, and Not At All Confusing(tm). :-P
Some improvements that might be made:
On reading the article, it seems that there is no detail on the original manga, which is a different continuity from the movies, tv series or games.
This franchise is fairly famous, and has influenced other movies as well as science and engineering at times, which is what makes it so notable. From a quick read of the main article at Ghost in the shell I don't see any references to those influences atm.
Um, Kim, with all due respect, the article Ghost in the Shell is intended to be entirely about the manga, with small bits and pieces referring to the other things. I don't know what detail you believe is lacking. And the influences on other movies is from the actual movies of GITS itself; the Wachowskis were inspired on certain parts of the Matrix by Ghost in the Shell (film), not the manga. And there is also a whole page on World of Ghost in the Shell and Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell to hammer out more of these details.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok! I would never have guessed that from the current layout. Perhaps the top of the page should read something like "This article is about the manga, for other formats and uses , see..." . Can you summarize why you decided to make the 'main article' about the manga alone, rather than GitS in general?
I have a feeling that that layout is common for a number of works on WP, but it makes it really hard to find actual information you're looking for on movies or etc. (I've occasionally given up searching WP and turned to other sources due to this). What's your view on this, am I doing something wrong?
Well, a dablink thing should probably be used, but it would require discussing every single item within the article I think (or just linking to Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation)).
While I cannot speak for Lucia Black who also made the same decision months before myself, this all began for me when I was trying to reorganize Template:Ghost in the Shell. At some point, I discovered that Ghost in the Shell and what was previously "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" were practically identical in content, so I merged because they were WP:CFORKs. I was also aware of the layout rules discussed at MOS:AM, and the pages at the time did not meet these guidelines. I was unaware that Lucia Black had tried the same thing months before and also met with opposition from ChrisGualtieri. After weeks of arguing, I thought my attempt at compromise by taking what was the "(manga)" article and partially restoring it and turning it into List of Ghost in the Shell chapters where there is a heavier focus on publication history and a better location to house the actual list of chapters of each of the graphic novels, but this was not good enough apparently.
And yes, the current layout is that of other anime and manga pages. The top half of the article is used to describe the work of fiction, and the bottom half points you to the various media, which means the chapter list or the episode list or movies. You can see similar treatments at Sailor Moon, Haruhi Suzumiya, and Fullmetal Alchemist (pages which ChrisGualtieri has in the past stated he has issues with their layout as well). I had proposed a similar treatment for Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that has also turned into the bickering between myself and ChrisGualtieri that has plagued this article. Although, I don't see how the layout as it stands is confusing. Ghost in the Shell#Media exists to show you where to find information on the movies. This article is simply not meant to include a high level of detail on anything other than the manga, and even then some of the really technical stuff like English language book release dates or special editions are mentioned on the list of chapters. I think perhaps Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell and World of Ghost in the Shell need merging somewhere to flesh out other articles, as they are probably not worthy of being standalone pages, but other than that I don't know what's lacking and what Chris wants.
You know, ever since I used http://stats.grok.se/ in the Evangelion discussion, Chris has used it to say that the information at the list of chapters article has been marginalized because now it only receives a fraction of the page views of the central article. Here's the visits in June 2013 for "Ghost in the Shell" and here's the list of chapters (using June 2013 because the site is missing July 2013's data). However, these are the visits from August 2012 for the main page and for the "manga" page. This disparity has always existed and it's not my fault our readers don't want to look at a list of chapters when the main page gives them all of the general information they want, because they did the same thing last year in regards to ust believing that the central page covered everything they wanted to know and they didn't want to go to what they assumed was an identical page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost in the Shell should be the overview of the media or a disambiguation page because the focus is on getting readers where they need to go. The Ghost in the Shell (film) could by all arguments be at Ghost in the Shell, but that does not is not ideal. The manga needs its own page so that the Ghost in the Shell page remains concise and true to a single topic and allows readers an overview of the whole. So I agree with Kim Bruning's assessment and this mirrors the comments of A Certain White Cat at the Wikiproject. Quickly getting the readers to the content they want is the reason for separate pages, and a disambiguation of even related topics would prove more efficient than other options. The current form of Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) is a bit lacking, but can be fixed for the task. I'd also like to point out that the Ghost in the Shell (film) has over 4x the views of the manga for August 2012.[8] And I do not recall ever making an argument on Haruhi Suzumiya, but the Fullmetal Alchemist page is badly flawed and does not do justice to the anime series. But, for now, can we discuss the value of disambiguation of Ghost in the Shell - this seems a preferable option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the page view data shows is that no one ever cared about going to a page dedicated solely to the manga long before that page was moved to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. And everything you are describing is pretty much exactly how the pages are set up now. You just don't like that it's "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" and not "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". We have an overview of the manga's plot on the main article, with all the extensive details at the list of chapters or character list, and then the other media forms are discussed in the media section with links pointing people to the other articles. I do not see what has to be changed at this point. And you better not propose that we turn Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) into a page mirroring what Neon Genesis Evangelion looks like now, including making it the page everyone goes to first, because that would just be ludicrous.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even aware you asked that. Yes. I do object to making the disambiguation the main page. And that is because the primary topic is the manga and nothing else.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, could you please explain why the manga is the primary topic? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it came first and influenced many things that followed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you why you dislike the layout format suggested by MOS:AM so much? You constantly say content is lacking in various places, but whenever I've seen you expand on a topic it just seems superfluous to other pages, such as to the film sections on both GITS and NGE.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coming "first" does not mean it is the primary topic, and it is not related to the majority of works and it is not of greatest interest. I do not see it as the PTOPIC material for those reasons. The layout format of MOS-AM makes it confusing for readers to access relevant material and encourages limiting content which should have its own pages. Bleach (anime) does not exist, but it is profoundly different from the manga. This is also true for Fullmetal Alchemist, Claymore, Soul Eater, and a range of other topics including Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion. Take the Dragon Ball argument, Dragon Ball Z is a defining work, it should have always had its own page. MOS-AM was used to limit it, and you advocated it remaining merged per MOS-AM. I argued WP:SS (Detail), Split and a range of other policies which advocated its recreation only to have MOS-AM and not-notable be advanced as your arguments to prevent its recreation.[9] The same sort of argument is being advanced here, where "layout" and "MOS-AM" are used to limit the number of stand-alone pages and, by extension, their content. I prefer highly-focused single topic pages where production, casting and reception and so forth can exist for a complete and useful encyclopedic reference on said subject. MOS-AM is a threat to our coverage and makes Wikipedia a second or third source for even the most basic information because MOS-AM encourages combining adaptations of notable works. There is an issue with redundancy in the topic, I acknowledge that, but it should not prevent detailed articles on those adaptations. Dragon Ball Z was a strong case. Ghost in the Shell is a strong case. Watamote is not able to do this, like a majority of the topics, but Death note could be and Fullmetal Alchemist definitely is ready and capable of splitting. The key problem is how to do it and would you be open to such changes? I'd like to start with Ghost in the Shell and see how it goes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is all of this just because you hate MOS:AM? Because it says "don't make separate articles for very similar topics"? And to that end you're trying to use GITS, Eva, and DBZ as your examples for how it should be done? That's seems a bit quixotic.
Really, the format you're demanding for all these pages is not all that different from how things are set up now. You could call Fullmetal Alchemist a franchise page, but instead of having "Fullmetal Alchemist (manga)", "Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)", and "Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood", they're called "List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters", "List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes", and "List of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood episodes". I can only think of a handful of instances where an anime and manga are independently notable from each other, and that's DBZ, GITSSAC, and Pokémon's plethora of manga versions. But these should be exceptions rather than standards.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the dispute and do not come to dramatic conclusions. The section was removed from MOS-AM because it tried to usurp Wikipedia policy as a manual of style - something it cannot do. I take it that there is no issues making the list of chapters to cover the manga in full scope, the same as I could make the episode list cover the Fullmetal alchemist animes. It won't be a "list" anymore though. The pages were merged for lack of content, I will fill them out and make them useful. If this is the contentious issue, then I consider this resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, folks, aren't you just continuing discussion that you've been having elsewhere? How did that go so far? ;-)
The objective on wikipedia talk pages is not to discuss what you think or want so much as figure out how to reach consensus with the other party.
Let's work towards that systematically.
It's often useful to start out by finding (small?) points we *agree* on, if possible.
Could you each see if you can list one or two things that you would *not* mind the other person doing? No policy links here, just raw thoughts.
Beware of "only if" at this stage: If you have things that you'd be ok with only if something else happens first, -well- don't write those down yet, but do remember them, we can try to tackle those after.
I agree with Ryulong that not all anime and manga topics need separate pages. I also agree that the development of such pages can gather amounts of information with limited or no purpose. I would not mind Ryulong taking an active role in the SAC anime page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, a wiki is about edits. Can you translate those general terms into an edit Ryulong might make, and you would not revert? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just about any addition of content - because Ryulong is careful about such additions. I'd like the casting and production of SAC to be filled out - I do not have those materials yet. My primary issue is the removal of content - not on its addition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that franchise pages are useful for certain topics. I would like to see some of the topics that Chris has proposed be added to Ghost in the Shell pages, provided they can be reliably sourced.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same/similar question to you: Could you give an example of a topic you'd like to see ChrisGualtieri add at this point? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general: first step, we're trying to figure out our frame
if ChrisGualtiere was in charge, what would Ryulong (and others) be allowed to do;
if Ryulong was in charge, what would ChrisGualtiere (and others) be allowed to do?
I don't want to establish some kind of complex local policy out of this - that's overkill :-P. We're just trying to sketch the outlines of what is allowed .
This is known as the 'frame' we are working in. It's a concept used in many large organizations to figure out what you can and cannot do at any point in time. What we're doing now is trying to figure the smallest/simplest frame that could actually allow edits.
Once we have the framework in the back of our head, we can make certain edits to the articles already without getting reverted.
But the frame will likely be somewhat claustrophobic at first; there are large areas we don't agree on yet .
The idea going forward is to negotiate a wider frame to allow more kinds of changes until everyone is happy, or at least as happy as possible. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So ChrisGualtiere can add anything he said to Ryulong (in the diff Ryulong provided), and Ryulong is not allowed to remove content for now.
I'm sure you're thinking "But I could ignore that entirely, right?". That's true, but the odds of getting reverted are high, so it's not worth the effort to do something else yet :-)
So go ahead and make any edits you were planning,provided those edits fit inside the current frame.
Now next step is to try and expand that frame; though there's no point going for things that you don't want anyway. So let's check:
Ryulong: do you actually intend to do any edits at this moment in time that remove anything?
ChrisGualtiere: Do you actually intend to make any edits outside what you said to Ryulong?
If someone doesn't actually intend to do one of the above anytime soon, then awesome, that person is sorted for now and can just edit. After that, if you want to do something that falls outside that frame, you'll have to put forward an argument why it's a good idea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General plan: step 2
For now, try and exhaust edits you can already do.
If you don't get stuck. Perfect! You're done.
But you might get stuck. If/When that happens come back and provide an argument why the frame should be expanded to allow your next (set of) edit(s). Why/how will those edit(s) improve the article? What can you say that you think will get the other person to agree with you? Try and walk in the other person's shoes... if you were them, what could you tell them to make them agree? ;-)
Alternately, maybe someone reverts your edit anyway, even though you thought you were inside your frame. In that case there's been a misunderstanding. If that happens, you could come back and say something along the lines of "I figured you would agree to edit x, because I thought you meant _____ when you said ___; I guess you didn't though. What did I misunderstand?" . (you don't have to use those exact words of course, but it's a useful approach to figure out what went wrong).
Wait what? I'm not allowed to remove content?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... from the GitS pages under discussion. I guess that would be wisest for a couple of days at least. Unless ... Is there a burning need to remove something from the GitS pages under discussion right this minute? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC) And no one is stopping you trying to do so anyway, it just wouldn't be very conducive to reaching consensus.[reply]
Very well. I will begin working and will stick to the Shirow works first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, and do come back here before you try something outside the current frame! :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisGualtieri just restored his preferred set up of the articles. I will not abide by this. I have reverted his edits to Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga). There is no reason to take all of the material that essentially supports the notability of Ghost in the Shell and shunt it off to a page dedicated solely to the manga, weakening the notability of the main article. I will not agree to any resolution that allows the restoration of a page titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". The only reason it has taken me two days to notice this is because he did not perform the split from Ghost in the Shell until today.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, all of the content he added to the page I will consider WP:OR because he directly sourced the "Design and philosophy" section directly to the manga, without pointing out any chapters, and it seems to be an interpretation rather than a direct description.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong removed the changes I was explicit about doing, after agreeing to it. I am upset that the entirety was removed as well and the dedicated manga page was explicit. This action is not conducive to reaching any agreement or resolving the problem. I want that page to go through AFD processes; because the dedicated manga page is important for organization, function, depth, breadth and readability of the specific topic. The reversion exhibits an unquestioned loss of these factors by their unnecessary omission or containment in a disorganized page ill-suited to displaying them. Lastly, the content was not OR, and the pages are not marked with chapters because are "Author's Notes" and are at the end of the book.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I ever agreed to "Let's remake Ghost in the Shell (manga)". I thought I made my opinion on that matter blatantly clear. What I did agree to was the incorporation of content that you want on such a page into the existant pages. Again, your split just takes everything that supports the notability at Ghost in the Shell off to its own page which I will not agree to the necessity to. Again, there is nothing that prevents you or anyone else from adding all the content you want to Ghost in the Shell, or Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell, or List of Ghost in the Shell chapters.
Now, regarding the content, if it is in the author's notes, I would prefer that it be explicitly stated that is the source. But if you are essentially just transposing the notes onto Wikipedia, I don't think that is particularly allowed either.
Again, there is nothing that has been put forward by Chris that says that he can ignore MOS:AM's layout suggestions other than his already clear stance on the issue. And I will not agree to the creation of a "dedicated manga page" or be required to go to AFD. I did that with Neon Genesis Evangelion and shut it down to avoid any further backlash because I was very blatantly told AFD is not for article clean up or merge discussions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the possible scenario's we expected might occur in the general plan step 2. At this point there's no reason to lose faith yet, because what happened is what we expected. It's also not the place to make hard statements about what we may or may not agree to later. Both of you seem to want to hurry hurry hurry! The ironic consequence is that things take much longer than if we aim at maintaining a steady systematic step-by-step pace.
We're currently on the "we have a misunderstanding" branch. :
ChrisGualtieri: What did you think Ryulong had said to you, and why?
Ryulong: Can you reply to ChrisGualtieri, and try to debug where the misunderstanding qua frame was?
When Ryulong responds with "Whatever he mentions here." I took that as exactly that. Which was, the core of what I did, "...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." Ryulong either did not read or understand nor specify what I was to explicitly do, so "whatever mentioned here" was completely fair in my eyes. Add it to the List of Chapters, makes no sense because this is not a list of chapters at all. On Philosophy of GITS? This is specific to the manga, and my repeated "dedicated page" I did not even mention that the Philosophy page.
I am also concerned because Ryulong is more exhibiting bad-faith here, he not only refuses to acknowledge my work, but actually is willing to go as far as making a copyright violation or OR claim for something he cannot even look at himself. This is profoundly problematic; Ryulong does not even AGF on the most basic of materials. This attitude makes the problem so much worse; where even the concepts of Motoko's sexuality was "lying" in the eyes of Lucia which begat a major conflict because when AGF is gone, the ability to work together is gone. Ryulong, you need to examine your position, on Wikipedia as a whole, time and time again you have displayed ownership of articles and forced your actions on pages. The layout of MOS-AM is gone; it was never supposed to be used, but this is core Wikipedia policy - and Ryulong stands in the way my good faith additions and desire to make "high quality articles".
If the content was to exist, then perhaps we can get through to the issue of organization of such pages - because many issues that are intertwinned here, but Ryulong is beside himself and cares not of policy, upholding what was removed by a clear consensus. Ryulong seems to percieve me as some threat, some monstrous editor who represents inclusionist ideals that run counter to his deletionist response to the over-representation of anime and manga. I'd seen this over-representation argument used before in a number of ways; and it is shared by several A&M members to the point that "English notability" must be met, with statements that "other language Wikipedia's should contain it, but not Enwiki." A&M has many flaws with the collective thinking and its identity which has become engrained in the last 6 years with a negative view of the fandom, academics, and even the works itself. The pop-culture consumerism aspect seems to be defining aspect, where individuals do not recognize the art form and disparage it - represented in totality by the "don't make articles on different media" stance of Ryulong. As a result, it is impossible to make a single good article on these adaptations because the splits of these adaptions are systematically destroyed. And that is the height on my issue with Ryulong, he doesn't even acknowledge that it is a problem and will not work with others to even consider the merits of it. The Dragon Ball Z debacle was enough evidence of this, but Ryulong's mentality is the barrier for improvement on this project. No matter how much we discuss, it is Ryulong who needs to change or be removed before such improvements can be made. I'd prefer we work together, and arrive at some project-level organization to resolve the issue of target pages - ACWC's disambiguation is incredibly desirable even if a bit unusual simply because adaptation or otherwise, the separate topics are best covered on individual pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "whatever he mentions here" I meant the philosophy and sexuality sections. Not a whole new article. I am sorry if I was not clear on that aspect.
That said, the "Sexuality" section added to Motoko Kusanagi was poor. It was an interpolation of a few scenes of the graphic novels and that smelled of WP:OR. If there are academic essays discussing her sexuality, I'd prefer they be added before what appears to be original analysis of the manga on Chris's part. And Wikipedia should not give one shit about what the anime fandoms thinks about it. I've experienced the ire first hand over things from fandoms over such unnecessarily trivial aspects such as romanization and choosing between R and L when official sources go with one and the fandom believes they're right and the original media is wrong and goes with another. But I digress. Several topics that Chris has shown interest in producing new standalone articles on are not independently notable of other aspects of itself, such as producing an article just on the anime adaptation of Bleach (manga) or separate articles on the three different versions of Fullmetal Alchemist (the original manga, the anime that had its own original ending, and the second anime that stayed more loyal to the manga's story). All this splitting just creates these franchise pages that don't show the subject in itself is notable, but it's disparate parts are. And these separate pages exist, but they're called "List of ..." and he does not want to produce featured lists but featured articles. And the constant attacks on MOS:AM are getting annoying. The layout works in 99.9% of the cases. DBZ is in that 0.1%. I don't think GITS and Eva are though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not OR though, it comes from Shirow's own notes which are provided at the end of the book. The ire of fandom should not evoke a response that content be removed because of your negative experience with elements. That is the nature of the otaku, after all. The layout doesn't work, many people agree on this. Already, numerous people expressed issue with it, over a dozen point out its flaws. Not just at the NGE matter either. Kim Bruning, what is your assessment of the now-removed MOS-AM line, "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or The article becomes too large."? This runs counter to the guidelines of N and GNG. And seems to be a major concern because Ryulong uses this removed text to justify merging these pages to a single article. As stated before, these meet N individually. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop referring to the fact you got MOS:AM modified to suit your desires. Ghost in the Shell as a "franchise" is not idependently notable from its original existence as a manga. And in other cases there are no sources to show that the manga and anime adaptations of a single work are independently notable from each other. There is no reason that simply having separate lists of chapters and episodes will not suffice for these matters. And there are no reliable sources to show the "franchise" is a thing that must be covered. That is why the layout described by MOS:AM is useful. And you never say it is the notes you are referring to.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given Ryulong's continued hostility and bad faith I am deeply concerned that the atmosphere is not conducive to making a resolution. Several things are wrong with the post, including overlooking the article's text, "Shirow's thoughts and work on Ghost in the Shell contains numerous footnotes and detailed explanations about scenes to give readers an understanding of the sociological differences or technological advances and philosophical discussion of the material." The franchise as a whole has been reference numerous times in RSes and the behavior exhibited is equivalent to a lawyer pounding on the table and yelling because the facts are not on their side. If Ryulong will not be honest or fair in even the most general assessments of the situation, this DRN will fail. These actions show Ryulong does not intend for this to be serious and is willing to use anything he can to enforce his views on Anime and Manga's development and coverage, regardless of the expense to the readers and the content. While this may be a bit dramatic of a post, the past several months show this pattern as clearly having little regard for Wikipedia's policies and consensus-forming actions to advance an invalid position (MOS-AM), which was rejected by peers and the community. Over a dozen editors have expressed the issues with A&M's layout, which Ryulong unilaterally enforces. The comment, "... you got MOS:AM modified to suit your desires" shows a mentality which goes against the core tenets of Wikipedia. While I'd like Kim's opinion on the dispute - it will probably not help as every other editor to espouse an opinion is dismissed nor even considered in the continued discussion. This is how the problem persists because the focus is on the vocal "you" and never the third opinions which deserve equal weight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could provide more in the reference other than "Ghost in the Shell, 1999" like page numbers. And I don't think that anyone has mentioned anything about page layout. The only thing that changed the bit of text that prevented the re-creation of Dragon Ball Z. And you've not shown me anything that refers to it as a franchise. All of the sources on the article are for the different parts. It's better to allow the main article to describe the manga in broad detail, and minor summaries of the films, video games, SAC, and ARISE, than to completely detach all description and reception of the manga (which never got that many views as a separate article in the first place) onto its own page, leaving a glorified disambiguation page just like Neon Genesis Evangelion became.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ponder these posts for a little while. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Bruning, Only in death (talk·contribs) came along and restored the states of Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) to where ChrisGualtieri had put them in due to the misunderstanding a few days ago as seen here and here. According to him and Chris, this means that the dispute has been resolved because it's now 2 against 1, when in reality it is 2 against 2 because Lucia Black still very likely holds the same opinions she had before she was topic banned but now cannot participate in the discussion. This is unacceptable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no such argument. It does not matter if Lucia participates or not, her and your mis-application of basic policies and guidelines regarding what can and cannot have an article hold no weight and have been explained in detail in the past. This DRN is a waste of time and effort and its only through Chris patience that its gone on so long. You have no intention now, nor have you shown any indication in the past of compromising on your view regarding the status of the article. Had I seen that there was a DRN open before I took the actions earlier, I probably still would have taken them, as mediation is not a way to prevent improvement to articles. And that is all that is happening at the moment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that we need so many disparate articles to discuss this subject. Because of these edits, the notability of the article on the "franchise" Ghost in the Shell is now supported by the notability of its disparate parts. The issue should not just be WP:N. We need to consider WP:AVOIDSPLIT because now we have a page that does not meet the notability requirements. This is what the problem is. The manga is notable. The movies are notable. The TV series is notable. Whatever ARISE is is notable. But this does not extend notability to a central "franchise" article. I saw absolutely no reason for this split. The only reason the articles ever existed separately in the first place was because there were separate articles dedicated to the Man Machine Interface and Human Error Processor releases. There is no reason to split everything up just because one thing can be deemed notable when the combination franchise and manga article was fine and completely in line with WP:MOSAM#Page layout. This is why the pages should not be separate. Episode lists and chapter lists suffice for every other manga and anime that exists. No one has bothered to say why Ghost in the Shell is special in any regard. It's just being held on a pedestal and Chris is basically using these pages as some sort of thesis on the subject.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So taking those in order:
'I do not think we need so many articles' is not a basis on which to prevent articles existing.
Where articles would be made up of individual notable subjects (film, book, TV etc) and there can be significant amount of info on each, the easy and natural way to split is by format. Granted I am not sold on the videogame being notable and needing a separate article, however good luck getting that past AFD if the VG project gets wind of it. Whats left at the primary should either be a disambiguation, or a short and easily navigatable article giving a brief over-view of the component parts with clear links to the relevant articles. This is a no brainer.
MOSAM is a guideline and not a very good one at that. It operates under the assumption (as do most other local wikiprojects) that there will be no competing project or guideline with different ideas about how things should be organised. Which is why things like GNG exist. Frankly I would do away with episode and chapter lists completely as its fancruft.
I was taught about GITS at secondary school over 15 years ago. I know one film studies lecturer who teaches with it now at university. Accusing Chris of using the pages as a 'thesis' is commenting on the editor not the edits.
Which all goes to show why I would not have participated willingly in this DRN in the first place, your arguments essentially boil down to 'I like it this way' despite not being based on policy or the strong guidelines regarding notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We go by policy, you are not arguing with policy, but making passionate rhetoric and alluding to policies that disagree. PTOPIC failed because the film is 4x more popular. REDUNDANTFORK failed because it was not the same topic on two different pages. AVOIDSPLIT fails because it meets notability and you are not going to use PTOPIC to wedge it in. ACWC's disamb idea is perfect for this. If you have an issue with the franchise page, AFD it. And GITS is special, it meets N, your personal stance and negative attitudes to anime and manga topics have caused disruption in this area as a result. Pages do not have to be worthy to exist in your eyes. I'm an academic scholar of anime and manga, I'm proud of it. Please take a good view at the pillars, the policies and realize that an individual is not judge and jury of what's to be included on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost in the Shell is now a glorified disambiguation page. Nothing on it supports its own notability as a franchise. This is the issue with "franchise" articles on items that are not a sequential series like Halo or Harry Potter. Ghost in the Shell (manga) was created over the redirect and we still have 5 years of editing history at List of Ghost in the Shell chapters which is now only separate because of the volume lists for Stand Alone Complex and Arise being tacked onto it. I have never understood why you would not accept the manga being at "Ghost in the Shell" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" and it being required to have its own dedicated page as "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". I also find it problematic that Kim Bruning has not edited in 4 days and is going to come back to this. I am still not happy with the current set up fof pages, but we may as well go back to the status quo of before Lucia and I did anything and take all the history at the list of chapters and merge it into the manga page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only took this much for you to recognize the point I espoused for nearly five months? Status quo, allow improvements, work together. The only issue you should have is the layout of the pages. Franchise or not, the whole thing meets N and its parts meet N, I'm sure that Rock (geology) meets N the same way quartz does. Even if it doesn't seem particularly notable on its own, it serves a function and a purpose. If it didn't sell its licensing, it would still be a media series, and the functionary article is properly served off a disamb in complex cases. At least I can than get into the specifics of the organization and business of the subject without worrying about it having to deal with manga add-ons. And with single-topic pages, the parts can expand and meet the GA and FA criteria for comprehensive coverage of said subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good point, the setup previously was actively preventing expansion and improvement on the individual aspects. And thats just not how wikipedia is meant to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris you're comparing fucking apples and oranges again. Rocks as a concept is obviously different from any individual kind of rock (quartz is a mineral too). Instead of having a page on the franchise, we are left with the glorified disambiguation page that is the same set up at Neon Genesis Evangelion. At least there I have a strong enough argument that the anime is the primary topic. I will concede that there is no such strong argument for Ghost in the Shell, and the page view evidence from before all of this shit went down proves that the manga is not the primary topic, but then there is no primary topic and we're left with a glorified disambiguation page that becomes the only feasible location to discuss the Hollywood movie that doesn't exist yet. And now everything on "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" is exactly the same as content that was on "Ghost in the Shell" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters". I've never received a clear enough answer as to why the list page could not be built up as Chris has stated how he wants to build up this manga page. And Only in death, there was nothing preventing expansion and improvement on the individual aspects other than Chris's complete outright refusal to build upon those aspects unless "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" existed in some form.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've stated, many times how the "glorified disamb" can be resolved, on the talks and even below us, a solution exists. A list page is a list, not a full article. You wouldn't accept it even if it were not to be retitled. Even minor improvements proved to cause too much drama. It is time to improve, not remove. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the minor improvements you made were redundant to other pages. In my head ther is still some level of there being too many pages on this one subject, and I think my main issue is with the "franchise page", but even if we were to get rid of it, I'd think Ghost in the Shell (manga) should be moved to "Ghost in the Shell" instead of readers being greeted with a disambiguation page. The franchise isn't notable on its own, but you won't agree to merging it with a page on the manga as was my original intent.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as pointed out, the manga should not be at GITS itself. Your explanation of why is unconvincing and serves to further highlight the need for a disambiguation, rather than go against it. No unnecessary mergers of notable topics that can stand alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this does not deal with topics that cannot in my mind stand alone, being the franchise page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is done, the current form would be indeed problematic. Hence the suggestion. Though the overview would serve as an introduction to the media, especially when the individual pages reach GA and FA level. So my concern exists, but I feel that it will also serve a clear purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least get sources commenting on the franchise rather than its composite parts?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not satisfied with this outcome. Yes, everything is back to the way it was before Lucia or I touched the page, but this still leaves us with the franchise page which in my opinion has no purpose. The arguments that MOS:AM#Page layout should be followed are ignored because "the manga is notable on its own". No one has ever given me a straight answer as to why the article on the manga cannot be Ghost in the Shell and why it must be separate at Ghost in the Shell (manga). ChrisGualtieri constantly stated he had all these grand ideas in mind for expanding the article but he refused to do it until the pages were the way he saw fit. And anything that he did add to the pages in the interrim were redundant expansions and my reversions were taken as "not letting him edit the page". Now we're back to square -1. There's an article titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" that mentions absolutely nothing other than the manga despite originating everything else known as "Ghost in the Shell" and there's a "franchise page" that is not be independently notable from the other topics but it apparently cannot be merged into the manga article as both Lucia Black and myself had independently done earlier in the year. Only in death's Gordian Knot approach only solves Chris's problems in that everything's back to where he has wanted it since April. And my arguments are invalidated because I can't pick a Wikipedia policy or guideline that covers them outside of MOS:AM#Page layout, but the guideline is allegedly crap because it stifles the creation of new pages on notable topics. Where does this leave my well intentioned suggestions for the pages?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of words, lots of drama for something already explained in excruciating detail. You got your "straight answer" in many places, including here. I wanted pre-dispute status quo for 5 months. You did not oblige until IOD's actions. You keep bringing my "background" up and try to use my interest as a weapon with some line like "this is his thesis". I do not need to compromise when basic policies are being ignored and makes it clear this is a battleground to be won or lost. This has been a colossal waste of time just to restore what should have been the status quo in the dispute. Your "well-intentioned suggestions" need some reevaluation because you use it to purposely stifle the creation of new pages of notable topics. That is the problem. Ryulong, you need to re-evaluate your stance on Wikipedia. Your negative experiences with anime and manga fans seems to have lead you into marginalizing the "over represented" content and strive to control the additions of "fans". It meets N or GNG, it stays. A&M cannot decide to selectively ignore them and your unilateral enforcement by "merging" is a part of the problem. You acknowledge the manga meets N and GNG, so it gets its own page. Enough said. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My negative experiences are with tokusatsu fans, of which there is crossover with anime and manga. Do you know how much ire I receive just because I demand that reliable sources be given precedence over fandom spellings? But that is not the point. Nothing was ever stifled. The article on the Ghost in the Shell manga could have always been "Ghost in the Shell" but you refused to add anything about the manga to that page because you demanded that it be given its separate page where there is now absolutely nothing on it that connected it to the other media. You even omitted adding a link to Ghost in the Shell to the lede in the version you wrote up last week after you misunderstood my intent. Now neither of you are working on the page because you've gotten your way and there's nothing to work on. We're left with a crappy franchise page that does not support its own notability but so long as the manga is notable on its own that's all that's needed in your eyes. And no you have never told me why this has to be the case. So answer these questions for me.
Why does the article on the manga have to be "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" and not "Ghost in the Shell"?
Why can't discussion of the manga include references to the other media that it produced?
Because this sets a precedent for every other god damn change that you wanted to make like producing a page just on the Lucky Star anime or a page just on the Bleach anime when all this does is produce unnecessary content forks that go against WP:AVOIDSPLIT. WP:N should not be the sole metric by which we produce stand alone articles on aspects of already notable subjects.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are being hostile again. So simply, point #1: separate pages for different topics, overview for the uninformed readers, there is no PTOPIC, AVOIDSPLIT doesn't count and its not a REDUNDANTFORK. Point #2, you can, but it is not a mirror of arguments to run afoul of point #1. GNG and N for separate articles, that is the minimum, data necessary to hold a split is low, but it must have a purpose. Direct the uninformed as necessary with disambs or overviews and do not force lengthy content before they arrive at their desired location. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it hostile? And AVOIDSPLIT certainly would count for anything else you have stated you want to make individual articles for, if not in this state. And really, how is there no primary topic? You have the manga, the film, and the video game being the only entities known as "Ghost in the Shell". The fact that the manga begat the film should show that it is the primary topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And holy shit you added way too much detail to Ghost in the Shell on useless minutae that are better covered on the other articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take that back. You just copied content from the other articles and inserted them on the franchise page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I can't even have a meal without you reverting and removing content that would be fine under RELART. Two sentences on a work, no matter the location, should be on the topic level/franchise/overview article. Also explained on the talk page. The PTOPIC argument doesn't even meet the most basic of criteria as is defined. You are not objective, so this discussion and DRN is pointless as OID stated. I will not participate in unmediated drama any longer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was working from that content and isn't your comment hypocritical in light of this? [10] Next time, I will remove it. Please stop creating drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the entry about man machine interface from Ghost in the Shell and moved it to Ghost in the Shell (manga) as well as expanding everything that was there previously. The titling information is now summarized at Ghost in the Shell, or it could be deleted entirely. And it takes two to tango, buddy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I retain (from another similar discussion) that a disambiguation page would be a good compromise to such problems as the one discussed here. Clearly it is a common problem with anime/manga related content that has spin-offs. People looking for information on "Ghost in the Shell" may wish for specific info on movies, the anime, manga, games, the franchise, etc but any page BUT such a disambiguation page may end up frustrating them. -- A Certain White Catchi? 19:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Dab pages do not solve the problem of primary topics.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They do. It eliminates drama and allows the reader to quickly choose what they want information on. This is why disambiguation pages exist in the first place. -- A Certain White Catchi? 04:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A dab page isn't necessary when all similarly titled topics are inherently related to each other.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is a franchise page. Though given how you won't even allow the names of major works to be on the topic article, your views do not seem to be making any sense to me. What is wrong with presenting a clear layout of what is contained in the topic? I'm quite partial to the disamb, simply because it is very effective at what it does. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What major works are you talking about? The video game adaptations of SAC are not major works. The novels of SAC are not major works. SAC is the major work. Everything else that is SAC is subordinate to it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you do not like them, but answer the question please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Franchise pages have their place when you have a chronological series of things. It works for Gundam. It works for Harry Potter. It works for Halo. When you have one originating work of fiction and things based off of it a franchise page is unnecessary and anything that would make up a franchise page would be better suited as a media section. You are the only one who thinks this format does not work.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is that "you" again when a majority expresses otherwise, not to mention DISAMB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What majority? What does WP:DISAMB have to do with any of this? In my opinion, it is unnecessary to have a disambiguation page for subjects that are inherently related to each other. And in my opinion franchise pages are not necessary for subjects that do not feature a sequential series of items. If there's one work of fiction and it receives a sequel or its part of a trilogy or however many things come after, then a franchise page has its use. If it's one work of fiction and a film is made based off of it or a TV series is made then the franchise page should just be incorporated into the page on the original work of fiction rather than made a standalone article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright this is pointless. Your agenda is obvious and you simply do not understand basic policy. You removed the correct stance to push your POV even after acknowledging it should get its own page.[11] There are no concessions to be made here because existence is what we are dealing with. We need a binding resolution because you refuse to acknowledge your peers and policy. Continuing on really only wastes time. Close this and move to formal and binding mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that sentence because I forgot to put a "not" in there somewhere and realized afterward that I fucked up completely. And tell me how the fuck do I not understand basic policy? You are the one who constantly picks acronyms and shortcuts out of nowhere and peppers your arguments with them despite the fact that on the whole they advocate the complete opposite of what you want to do. And why do we need a binding resolution? The articles are in the form you wanted them to be in the first place. The only thing now is that the way you expanded it is completely unnecessary. And it's not my fault that Kim Bruning disappeared for a week and in that time everything went to shit. But you are right about one thing. There is nothing that either of us can do to convince the other that their idea is better for the article so anything else is pointless. You want to have these "broad topic" pages that should be expanded to cover anything and everything in the subject and I think they're better suited as terse media sections within other articles so it's pointless to argue any further. The only way we've even gotten this far is because Only in death intervened and supported your side and Lucia shot herself in the foot.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you forget the half a dozen other editors like Niemti, Dragon, Rapunzel, ACWC, Only in Death and so on and so forth... but the disagreement on the policy needs to be clarified with binding resolution and potentially a community level decision on the layouts. I'll concede the NGE matter for the purposes of advancing this, as it is not as distinct as the GITS matter. If you do not want to work towards a final and binding resolution and not continue this conflict into the foreseeable future you will start making some concessions of your own as a show of good faith. I've give a lot of wiggle room, but a conflict like this seems unprecented on Wikipedia and they are not mutually exclusive, but given the subject matter A&M could be entirely changed because notable anime and manga can reach FA, but have completely different and specific coverages. And how do we best resolve the issue of organization? Do we hatnote one to the other, do we overview, do we disamb? These are all questions that need to be developed and pushed into MOS-AM or policy pages as they are resolved. Agreed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't concede when I don't have any ground to stand on. Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) exist instead of Ghost in the Shell and List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. That's what you wanted out of this in the first place. The only thing it seems you want is for MOS:AM to be deprecated so you can make standalone articles for every anime and manga you can find sources for and then make a new franchise page for them, and I obviously don't agree with that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have pointed out before, I don't want franchise pages for every one. Some of the current formats are perfectly fine, but it would be more acceptable to combine the smallest lists into full articles on the anime or full articles on the manga which details their production, themes, critical response and casting if applicable, the same formats which should be followed for the MOS on TV, Film, books and such. Some pages cannot even hold two full articles, so why would I want to franchise those? I'm not out to deprecate or destroy A&M's organization, but many editors have commented on its ineffective layout and so much content has been removed by deletionists who carry on a non-existant battle over content depth and page count. You seem to self-identify as a "keeper of order" by deleting and "managing" such pages, but you do not seem to realize that the detailed content on each adaptation rightly fits on its own page? The layout issue seems to be a major point of contention from which you use to justify actions on Wikipedia; that's not wrong, but MOS-AM had a localconsensus which you still believe in, despite N and GNG being the burden for separate pages. You rather have 1 page per topic rather than 2 or 3 indepth pages that share a story. The Harry Potter book and film adaptations are not forced together, nor should the anime and manga articles be. For small ones, the adaptation should be hatnoted or lead to a disamb. I want this petty conflict resolved and we are two opposite sides and any conclusion we come to an agreement on is probably going to be a long-standing one that can last for a decade before needing to be revisited. Which is all the more reason to sit down, work this out and move on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Franchise pages have their use. I don't see the use for Ghost in the Shell which is only a franchise because of the explosive popularity of Stand Alone Complex. I also don't see a possibility for the creation of individual pages on the Sailor Moon manga and anime or a page just on Bleach's anime. They are so heavily intertwined with each other that it's just not necessary in my opinion. You obviously hold a different opinion. I still have nothing to make as a concession unless you want me to give up my personal opinion on article structuring.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer's note: It's been 10 days since Kim last edited Wikipedia and this listing passed it's usual DRN expiry date long before that (on August 9). Had it not been listed during our now-failed experiment with subpaging, it would have been autoclosed several times since then. I'm going to leave it open for another 24 hours, until 17:00 UTC on August 27. If Kim has not weighed back in by then, a volunteer will close it as a dispute which ought to either move back to the article talk page or on to formal mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So this solved nothing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And then we're shit out of luck should the mediator disappear as well?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it, but then it would go to the final stage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is the "final stage" then?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer's note: I've watched this from the sidelines (and recalling the multiple previous times both ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and others have conflicted over this locus of dispute). Seriously, at least one (possibly all) need to 100% walk away from this article. Stop calling the exact same question and making the area such a nuisince that people refuse to have anything to do with the area lest the communities patience be so worn out that they authorize General Sanctions for the set of pages. Once general sacntions are issued, nobody wins, and everyone looses. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.