Talk:.hack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creating Category[edit]

I was thinking about maybe creating a category entitled Category:.hack series voice actors. Is it a good idea?

Musicalmelodygirl 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have gained copyright permissions, can we offically put up our .hack// Website on the external list? (Due to the largest .hack// Gallery on the web?) User: Code_2008 March 19th, 2008 - Okay, seriously... who keeps removing the link, and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Code 2008 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your gallery, the first thing I noticed was a photo I took that I've never released the copyright to. No credit or anything. Claims of it being the largest gallery should also be supported by some sort of evidence... In addition, the wiki on the site has entire pages that are just patchwriten from the .hack//WIKI without giving credit or using a compatible license. - Kuukai2 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//G.U. onward[edit]

The way the page is written, it says that the parts of .hack// that are done by the new companies are in the 'official canon', which would seem to throw doubt on whether they are part of the unofficial canon, AKA, what the fans think. Is there any such discord? I only ask out of curiosity- I don't really think there is another wording for the information, it just interested me. T.z0n3 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Is This???[edit]

I have come across this entry accidentally, but having read it am none the wiser as to what it's actually about? It reads like a piece of specialist commercial literature about some esoteric computer game. Why is this notable or important enough for a Wiki entry?????62.56.102.209 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a manga/anime series. And yes this page need a lot of work. --CRtwenty 01:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a manga nor an anime. .hack is a multimedia franchise. The manga and anime series, as well video game series, this franchise has spanned have their respective article.Kazu-kun 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FMA is the same way, yet I see it uses the anime/manga templates on its page. The fact of the matter is, this page, which is supposed to tell people what .hack is about, tells absolutely nothing. And the average person isn't going to wade through all the other pages to try and figure out what it is. Look at the post above, the guy read the article and had absolutely no idea what the page was about, this is a problem that I intend to fix. I don't care if you consider it a "multimedia franchise" the rest of the world sees it as an anime/manga series. End of discussion.
End of discussion? The article isn't yours, and if you keep that attitude eventually you'll be banned from editing. Anyway, this is not the same as FMA. FMA began as a manga, and then spanned different adaptation. .hack, on the other hand was conceived from the start as a multimedia franchise. Even when talking about the two multimedia projects, .hack began as a video game, which has nothing to do with anime and manga. Now go take a look at this interview with Daisuke Uchiyama, one of the creator of the .hack franchise. BTW, new posts go at the bottom of the page. EDIT: Also, take a look at the Boogiepop article - Boogiepop also spanned anime and manga, but it started as a light novel series, therefore no infobox is used in the article; .hack began as a multimedia franchise, and there's no need for infobox either.Kazu-kun 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the Boogiepop article has information on the series as a whole. Not two little stubs talking about something called "Project .hack" and ".hack Conglomerate". You don't have to call it an anime/manga series if you want. But this is the main .hack page, so it should have information about the entire series. And until this article has this information, I'm going to keep editing it. As it is this page is a joke, you can't even tell what the hell it's supposed to be about. --CRtwenty 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, .hack//SIGN was the first piece of media released. It was developed at the same time as the first game, but the anime was released a good two months before the game. So .hack was an anime before it was a game. --CRtwenty 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazu-kun:[edit]

Please stop vandalizing the wiki. Wikipedia has no "First is most important rule", and there are many other multimedia wiki pages that have infoboxes for ALL the media involved in the project regardless of which came out at what date. Hell, the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya links to the anime, even though the light novels came out several years before. Besides, .hack//Sign came out two months before .hack//Infection, so your point is moot anyway. --[[75.135.82.7 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)|AuraTwilight]][reply]

I'm not vandalizing, and but the way, there's an article for the Haruhi light novels.Kazu-kun 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is it the main page you see when you search "Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya"? This is the page for the entire .hack series, so it should information on the series as a whole. That includes anime and manga. Just because you have some sort of vendetta against putting information here doesn't mean the rest of us .hack fans do. --CRtwenty 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you know what good faith means. Anyway, I don't have any vendetta or whatever, and I'm not being rude to you either, as opposed to you. I have nothing against improving the article. I just want you to discuss things first because there are policies and guilines we have to follow here on wikipedia. That's all.Kazu-kun 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to point to all the various parts of .hack. .hack isn't one series with a bunch of spin offs, it refers to all the pieces as a whole. --199.242.209.47 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We're not dealing with one series and its adaptations. .hack is a franchise: various series comprising one sole thing.Kazu-kun 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys see why I created .hack//Wiki? Because of Wikipedia's shitty rules and guidelines and dumbass users. ZOMG! TEH FLAMES!! It's pointless to try and argue with him. It's obvious he's too hardheaded to see that .hack should link to its various series, like Star Wars does. The #1 rule of Wikipedia is no consistency. Wikipedia is supposed to be based off English names and such, yet I see weeaboo-esque articles for the DBZ series like Kuririn and Yamucha. Kulaguy 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, .hack is a franchise. So why aren't all the parts of it clearly explained on the main page? As the main page for the entire series, one should be able to get a brief understanding of the entire series from it without having to go into the tons of minor articles (most of which are quite frankly, unnecessary). You claim to want to improve the article, but all I've seen so far is an attempt to revert any attempt to improve the page. Just a few days ago this page contained absolutely no useful information, and yet you keep trying to revert it back to that state. Why? --CRtwenty 09:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I merged Project .hack and .hack Conglomerate into this article. That way it links to all its series, as Kulaguy suggested.Kazu-kun 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the article looks a whole let better now. --CRtwenty 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//G.U.+[edit]

would there be any objections if I wrote an article for .hack//GU+? Especially now that it's being distributed in English by Tokyopop, I think it deserves one. Sairith (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I'm not sure about all the sites, but I know that dothackers.net has interviews and reviews, so it looks like it falls under WP:ELYES part 4. Iirc it's been used as a source by the official Altimit Corp ARG website and IGN, so it meets reliability criteria as well. If no one objects I'll re-add it in a week. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify[edit]

I wikified the "setting" part of the article. Can someone else please wikify the "main storyline" header? Quintusπ talk 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's pretty difficult considering each game has different stories along with the novels. and it's hard to decide which one is a main storyline.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the article to look closer to a media list so it wont look all in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fixing the .hack articles[edit]

Hey, anyone who wants to contribute, please help out on other .hack articles, such as adding references and removing over detailed information. Some reorganizing needs to be done in List of .hack characters although i already fixed most of the formatting. The novels and manga need work although we could just simply merge them all into a new article and call it List of .hack publications. Either that or someone goes out to delete them for lack of reference and notability. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the graphic novel templates have been removed, I have made two pre-articles. one for light novels shown here and one for the mangas shown here. All they need is expansion on description and release dates along with ISBN so they can be full-fledged articles. Then merge them with mangas and novels that aren't notable enough to be kept. I've been thinking i the soundtracks should be separated in to it's own separated article if soundtracks for .hack//Sign and .hack//Legend of the Twilight were ever to be added and expanded.
Another issue i wanted to speak of, is of course .hack//Link considering .hack link released first, we would consider the game the adaptation. but due to the afterward section in the manga, it is revealed that the manga was the adaptation to promote the game. So once we find more concrete information on the game enough to merit it's own article, do we place the manga in it's related media section if the manga doesn't differ too much from the game?
Well character section still needs some work. I've been thinking hard on it and found a fairly good structure idea. since there are .hack (video game series) and .hack//G.U. articles. i think the same should be applied to the character sections. with two separate lists. one for the first .hack series and the other for .hack//G.U. series. that way Protagonist-Antagonist-0ther section would work. protagonist having the heroes and supporters, antagonist being the ones against the heroes and then their is other: characters appearing in other media that strongly relates to the main game series. for characters that do not appear in the games or isn't directly related to the video game counterparts, they can be mentioned in their own article or sectionBread Ninja (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like, you can add them to the list of media, but I don't think there are enough entries to justify having two separate lists for light novels and manga. Go ahead and copy them to the main list of media if you like. I think the soundtracks can safely fit in the list of media as well, but my plan was to put the soundtracks in the respective articles where they can be discussed critically. I don't know much about Link since it hasn't been released in the US yet, so there's no hurry in worrying about that issue until we have more information. The characters list can probably be patient for a little while longer as well, until the main articles are improved. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be good to merge it. though i got the idea from a few articles such as Blood+ and but i think the merge sounds better so i'll just merge it there. As for .hack//Link, you're right. the game hasn't released outside japan yet so i guess we need to wait on that. though maybe we could find some information on gameplay in famitsu articles? i'll look into it. Considering you found some reception towards these soundtracks, i'm sure we would be able to get at least a B-rank article if we find more for other .hack media.
for the character sections I could make a pre-set just so when the time is right, we wont have to figure it out later. Though for now I'll see what i can do with this article. i think I'll merging project .hack and .hack conglomerate would help this article. ill even add some sourcing by using anime news network.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost content[edit]

I notice that article currently contains the "sentence":

In the game's 'r simultaneous crash of all computers and network control systems on the 'Real World', Pluto's Kiss, a virus written by a ten-year-old elementary school student, caused aInternet]] that did not run on the ALTIMIT OS, which subsequently became the dominant operating system worldwide.

I had a quick look in the history to try and fix it, but one of the regular editors probably will stand a better chance. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, i see, no wonder the section looked a bit off.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media List[edit]

After being invited to join, beyond the obvious lack of any legacy/reception/impact, I do notice this article has a lot of media listings. Typically for franchises, these are ported to a list like List of Dragon Quest media and I think the .hack franchise has enough such items it should do so.陣内Jinnai 19:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there already is a list of .hack media article, if that's what you meant. but it does need citation and verificationBread Ninja (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, those sections should be reformatted into prose and possibly merge/remove some of the lesser ones as done in Dragon Quest.陣内Jinnai 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i made pre-articles on list of .hack novels and .hack manga chapters, so i think those could replace some of the two sections. But i don't think it could all be in prose. The header could give more history on the media or explain it in different sections.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//The Movie[edit]

Looks like there is a new movie for this series coming out. I'd love to see an article about it, including all known voice actors, etc. 97.75.172.122 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored blanked sections[edit]

Just for the record, in case it comes up later on, I used the following diff when reapplying edits that were made after the section blanking. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.hack&action=historysubmit&diff=470735898&oldid=452977873 Search4Lancer (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.hack vs Dot Hack[edit]

Not proposing a move just yet, but should this article (and related articles) be renamed to Dot Hack? This spelling is closer to standard English, and there do seem to be sources that have used it (or dotHack, Dot.Hack, etc.), along with the logo’s “DOT” in the dot. Just throwing the question out there. —Frungi (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every piece of .hack media has the "DOT" in the dot. See Quantum for example. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its still readable and doesnt interfere with sentence structure. So im against the move. And im unsure if they ever use "dot.hack", the most ive seen was "dot hack" or "dot-hack".03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My main point wasn’t that a logo uses it, but that sources use it. But as I said, I’m not going to push for it, just making the suggestion. I like the .hack name, personally, even though Dot Hack is probably more readable. —Frungi (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler[edit]

The setting section contains major spoilers... super angry rage (but I don't know how to include a warning banner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.142.109 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on .hack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.protoculture.ca/PA/PA75edito.htm Ffy1234r (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

".hack Character Classes" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect .hack Character Classes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#.hack Character Classes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fidsegj 2A02:2F05:214:9C00:18FF:393B:19D8:235C (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.hack&oldid=1194780571"