Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 7 May 2013

Archives

2012-2013 April 2013 -

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	I ran across a few of your edits when retracing my vandalism reversion to make sure the vandals weren't back. Noticing that you have a disproportionate amount of anti-spam actions, I took a look at your edit count, and I'm amazed I haven't run into you, before! Thanks for all that you do for Misplaced Pages! Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DR

Attempting to open a dispute resolution, but puting the "request DR" button appears to take me to a blank wiki page. Could you elaborate the correct process? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

when I push that button/link I get a blank wiki page that is read onlyGaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know. Maybe script related? Ask on IRC? WP:IRC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong

As far as I'm concerned the dispute resolution is useless at this point because we have no outside input.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Too bad. Lucia took me to ANI last time I did what you were doing. But since I have your attention, can I ask you to consider something and entertain me for a brief moment? About the 'two articles' matter. Between us, not Lucia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at these version of GITS. Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Lucia unilaterally moved and expanded the manga content. I LIKE that version of the manga page, we have pushed it farther, but the Oct 2012 GITS material was well... incomplete and out of shape. I want Ghost in the Shell to be more like that Oct 2012 one and the manga page to be its own manga page. Though I want to give the manga and original works more prominence. Your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two articles. You just don't like that one isn't a franchise page. You've made that abundantly clear.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason why "Ghost in the Shell" cannot booe the "manga page" and a "franchise page". You've yet to explain that to me in any fashion. All I've been doing is making the page in line with the rest of the project's anime and manga pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Its the balancing act. I do not see how the reception and original plot are needed if we will not discuss OTHER plots of the 20+ works. Lucia thinks lemon and lemonade are redundant forks, but I think you disagree. If you do not see this critical point, we will never agree on anything. If Ghost in the Shell comes to contain the information of all works the page will eclipse 400k and be HUGE. Then Lucia or you will cut everything down anyways. I'm trying to prevent any more content loss, we have already lost a lot of key information because of this matter including Lucia's previous edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You're putting words in her mouth. And would you at least look at the latest version I had instated before you reverted everything so you can see where those 11,199 bytes went?

• I tidied up the "Setting" part to be a general discussion of the setting of all of the works, rather than focusing on how one version is different from the others.
• I sent all of this information to the chapter list.
• I cut out some fluff from the multimedia section that seemed unnecessary.
• I summarized the manga's plots better.
• And I added the kanji you discuss in this section.

At least in this form the article somewhat resembles other anime and manga pages, like (as you previously pointed out elsewhere) Sailor Moon and Fullmetal Alchemist.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not my fault if Lucia attributes a direct adaption or close relationship with, "Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, are all alternate tellings of the original (with Arise being the only one that's a prequel). All spin offs are directly related to the original manga (except for the spin off media based on the original spin offs)." A casual reference is fine, but any such "alternate tellings" have to be routed in reliable resources. So the 1995 film and Innocence count. SAC says otherwise according to production I.G. by explicitly labeling SAC as a separate continuity. Canon issues aside (as you said), I am not against mentioning them and giving 300-400 words on EACH work. This is basically half the manga. I just do not think that the films deserve two sentences each and the reception of the three books gets paragraphs. And we lost many reviews and links to said reviews. Censorship of the manga is also purely off-topic for the whole of GITS. And you KNOW how the sexuality of Motoko is depicted. Characters and world should be greatly expanded, but lets not cripple our key navigation page with overly detailed manga details.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But the films don't get two sentences each. They have their own separate articles. The reason that we can't come to a compromise is because you have it so set in your mind that the manga needs to have its own separate article one article needs to solely be dedicated to navigating amongst the others. I'd be willing to move the plot summaries I made for the manga on the main article to be used on the list of chapters and further summarize the content on the main article but even that I don't think would suffice for you. You need to look at Ghost in the Shell and List of Ghost in the Shell chapters both as articles on the manga, the latter dedicated to the publication history and the former dedicated to everything else about the manga, which includes the anime that followed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not want one article to be solely navigation... which is why I think the franchise part pisses you off, I just want the excessive detail somewhere else. What I want and what you want seem to be the same, but we call it different things. I want somewhere between FMA's coverage of the original manga and what was done to DB GT. DB GT being related by characters and theme, but not being original. The issue comes to Stand Alone Complex which I think should be given distinct alternate universe sections totalling about 3000-5000 words covering it. With Arise universe comprising 1000 words for now. 10000 words being about the limit for the page length. Most people lose concentration on freely engaged searches in about 20 minutes, so 10k is my WP:LIMIT. You agree with some of these points? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's only excessive detail because you want it to be a franchise article and cover everything rather than be like 75% one thing and 25% five other things (or however many you're going to count). It's not necessary to have all that coverage you are proposing for the SAC or Arise sections on a central Ghost in the Shell article, and your comparison to DBGT doesn't work because DBGT was a sequel that vastly differed from the source material and you want the original form of Ghost in the Shell to be split off onto its own separate article. We need something more like Sailor Moon and Fullmetal Alchemist. We don't need to go into so much detail of how the Stand Alone Complex setting and the Arise setting are different from the manga setting. They're all in a cyberpunk world with cybernetically augmented brains and hackers and semi-sentient robotic tanks.

Here is my compromise:

• We move most of the plot summary of the manga off to the list of chapters, and we keep that article called the list of chapters. However, there is still some brief description of the plots of the three books on the central page. Such as saying book 1 is about the investigation of the Puppet Master, book 2 is about the Major's new job elsewhere, and book 1.5 is a collection of short stories set between 1 and 2.
• The plot section gets brief mentions of how the animated adaptations differ, as we are still relying on the other articles to provide that information. Such as how the movie is based on book 1, Innocence is based on book 2 to an extent, SAC lacks the puppet master and its wars were different, and Arise is an original prequel. None of this thousands of words crap. They have their own articles for that.
• The main article keeps the reception, production, and censorship sections dedicated to the manga. Reception of the films, video games, and TV show should remain on their respective separate pages.
• We continue to flesh out the article Ghost in the Shell with content primarily regarding the manga.
• Any other media that come from the massive list you wrote up should be discussed on the page of whatever version it was based on. This means the SAC novels and manga should only be discussed on the SAC pages, the Innocence novelization should only be on Innocence's page, etc.
• The switch of the publication history content still happens (extensive coverage on the chapter list, summary of Japanese only content on the main article)

Thoughts—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with you up until you said the main article keeps the reception, production and censorship parts. The reason I do not want the original manga plots to be discussed in over detail is the same reason I do not want the other aspects to be discussed in over detail. Basically this is what I want in sections.

• Lede
• Table of Contents
• Setting/Character/Theme
• Original Manga (include all three if you must...)
  • Short plot, reception and relationship sub-sections
• Film
• Innocence
• Stand Alone complex

And so on with a short plot, reception and other key details in each subsection with the main splits going to the proper pages. 1000 words for GITS manga. If you can keep it under 1000 words. For perspective as is, the plot 550, creation/dev 237, publication history is 630. censorship is 98, and reception is 377. Total is about 1900 words, so it is twice as long as I want it to be. I do not want to lose that 1000 either, I want it on the other page. Comparatively, FMA has 500 to the manga, 352 to the anime, and 400 to brotherhood. I will not count plot, production and others as they integrate content themselves in a meaningful way, bringing the about section further while doing so in a natural way. If you want it to be stylized after FMA, I do agree if you are willing to cover ALL the media in such a format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So do you finally the main article should not split the manga? I disagree with weighing sections by their article size. Adding the key info will inevitably balance the size out between series. Plus its less necessary to add extensive detail when they have their own article. You have to understand proper weight is relevant when there are no other articles. So if the manga isn't split, then all manga info can be in the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The grammar is.... difficult to understand there, but if I understand you correctly, you want the manga at one page... all of it? Umm no. WP:DETAIL suggests TWO pages. I'm agreeing with Ryulong, not you. I'm willing to try and work with Ryulong on this, because I know it will meet WP:SPLIT one way or the other and I'll be able to deal with it later. If it somehow makes it to FMA style and in a meaningful integrated way, then yes, but you know what... let's see how 200 kb of text feels? It seems the only way to prove my point, but anything that gets converted or axed GOES to the list of manga. Got it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm using a respectful tone, as I expect you to do. WP:DETAIL is a guide for when articles are divided to express level of detail. It does not support your claims of split. I'm in the same boat as Ryulong, so this pro-Ryulong and anti-Lucia is being just far too childsh for even you to take seriously. Ryulong agrees that the article shouldn't be merged and has discussed it as thorough as I have. This anti-Lucia view is getting you nowhere. You deny me yet accept Ryulong, despite him having similar views as mine about the article and against yours. Not only that but you mention I reported you to ANI. It was well deserved about the third time you edit warred without consensus. Do you think other editors should let it slide? Let's not forget ryulong contributed to that ANI report aswell. For once stop being so stubborn and accept the facts that Ryulong isn't saying hardly anything different from what I am.Lucia Black (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But it is different. I really grow tired of this endless back and forth. So until we get a new DRN person, I'm going to be working on a personal project of mine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You say that...but you don't prove it.Lucia Black (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Already did, you don't seem to be reading my responses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No...you didn't...and I have a big feeling you're never going to explicitly say it. (Probably becase you know there's no difference).Lucia Black (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)\

Because GITS original manga is notable and distinct enough from the whole as to warrant inclusion under N and GNG. Furthermore, the detail is excessive for a topic-broad page and should be split for numerous reasons. Here is some of them SS states, "it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article". Also do not forget that SS also contains this gem, "Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." it also states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."

"This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles."

"The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects. This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a Main article: ] or similar link to a full article on the subtopic summarized in that section ..... The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its specific part of the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered. Thus, by navigational choices, several different types of readers each get the amount of details they want."

Basically, the entirety of WP:SS says that it is proper to split the manga to its own page. You don't seem to read the policies. Citing WP:SS means you should check it because it IS my argument. I've explicitly stated the reason every time I bring up the policy, it is not my fault you don't read it or fail to understand what it means. Basically, if its notable it can have its own article, if it is disproportionate in scope from a topic it can get its own article, if the subtopic is notable it can get its own article, and before you start any protesting: MOS-AM does not count because SS trumps it and WP:CFORK is helpful to my argument and not against it as you claim. There is an acceptable coverage as noted as SS about the summary of the subtopic, its that last part I quoted. If you ever say I didn't explicitly state my position or case I will refer to this post and every other instance of WP:SS and other policies that contain the information. I have restated my point over 20 times to you, the majority with policy, but it seems you have not read them or else you would have known the argument I presented. Any other 'objections' you want me to explicitly state with quotes? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'm awake. And basically we're never going to get to a fucking resolution because you want everything manga on one page that is not Ghost in the Shell. You are right that the original manga is notable. That's why we have it without a disambiguation anymore. You keep quoting WP:SS without acknowledging the fact that because it is the original work it should be the main page of everything. And no this does not mean that you should make a Ghost in the Shell (franchise) page. We should not move the reception/production/censorship stuff off of the main page because the main page should not be a massive summary of everything Ghost in the Shell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored my edits to the article and performed the changes that I suggested above, including moving a lot of content to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (production, censorship, and reception remain on the first article). Rather than reverting me, again, maybe we can come to some sort of conclusion as to what sections you don't want on the page or how we can make the existing sections more to your liking.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How about you make your case at DRN. I will probably revert your edits back anyways because as is... the majority of the content that has been stripped or altered is not being held in thin air. As is, a major reworking of all pages will be needed once this dispute is over. Any scratching around that is done is purely in sand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm voting for mediation now. Its the only way this will get solved.Lucia Black (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

H7N9

ChrisGualtieri, I've noticed that you and Gandydancer have had a bit of disagreement about what, if anything, should be said in the introduction of Influenza A virus subtype H7N9 regarding elderly males stricken with H7N9. In the article discussion page I've proposed a compromise. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it and maybe add your thoughts to the discussion. —RP88 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your tagging of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hentai articles

You seem to be mistagging several articles. Specifically, just because the series has either yuri or yaoi in it does not automatically make it hentai or ecchi related. If that was the case, then any work depicting heterosexual romance would automatically be considered hentai or ecchi. If there isn't any sexual content in a series, don't list it under this WikiProject. Some examples would be Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl, Sweet Blue Flowers, Maria-sama ga Miteru‎, etc.--十八 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I already told you why. Not all yuri or yaoi related series are hentai or ecchi related. "Yuri" just means "girl-girl" love; similarly, "yaoi" just means "boy-boy". Just as a genre, they have nothing to do with hentai/ecchi.--十八 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. I was going through the category recursively, I avoided Clannad because while Air and Kanon are such works, the coverage of their graphic content is secondary for their articles. The notification window from echo is slow and not obvious when a user page is changed (since it was flooded out), I didn't even see the first post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should check the WP:ANIME talk page again. Seems like there's a RFC going on about this. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much free time

My contribution to the sex offenders inhabiting Little Diomede Island was completely true. I had a reference included as well. Please reverse the changes you made regarding my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.190.206 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

mail

sats 01:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

my apologies - mixed up confused id in another space - sats 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual Offences Order

Hello. Please excuse me, although I've had this account for a while I've never really used it and I'm struggling to work it out.

I don't know if the reason you undid my edit was because I didn't reference it, but I'm not yet sure how to include a reference and I thought the update (clarifying that only male homosexuality was illegal and thus actually de-criminalised by the HOO) was too easily verified and undisputed a fact for anybody to want to change it in the short time I hoped it would take me to discover how to do it. There are also already certain references on Misplaced Pages (including in the article I updated) to the fact that homosexuality was only ever illegal for men in any of the UK, and this further bolstered my confidence that it would be an uncontroversial clarification to make.

Here is one example of a source I could link to, so that you know the update is legitimate. Could you perhaps direct me to any instructions for adding it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optifog (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Puppet Master/Puppeteer clarification

Their the same. Solid State Society plays a similar role to how Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is loosely based on robot rondo chapter of the original Ghost in the Shell. The only difference is their origin. Original Puppeteer was a program evolved into AI, in SSS it was a collective conscious. Both hacked the major with only SSS implying that they've merged.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Its an unverified claim, different entities and Project 2501 was completely different from the Noble Rot hub cyberbrain. You are the 'expert', so you should be able to prove otherwise if true. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no direct source. But its like sourcing "Bateau" and "Batou" are the same. Both are "The Puppeteer" with only the film mentioning him as "Puppet Master" and highlighting the name "Project 2501" where the manga only mentioned it briefly.Lucia Black (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In the manga and the film, the AI which merged with Motoko lead to a new entity. SAC is an alternate universe with the explicit mention that there was no Puppetmaster case. Motoko's subconscious was the Puppeteer in SSS, by explicit reference. It was not the Puppet master at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the source for the first season. And it was based on the assumption that Motoko never met Puppeteer (past tense). Similar to how a series has sources that confirm that there will never be a new series and they release 1 anyways. I now because I was the one who added that source.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop squirming, are you denying that Motoko's subconscious was the Puppeteer, yes or no? Also, if you are, aren't you neglecting the Solid State matter entirely? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying that. But "the Puppeteer" origin may have changed, but their roles are practically the same. And in the end, both merged with the Major. Idk why the Solid State Society article cuts off the end.Lucia Black (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

But placing them together is the problem. Its straight from this lines:

Kusanagi: I'm surprised. Your thinking is so arrogant and self-righteous, yet you have so much drive. Being a bureaucrat is a waste of your talent. Plus, you know all about me... Who the hell are you?!

Puppeteer: You still haven't pieced it together? Come now, Motoko Kusanagi... Surely there can't be an overabundance of people dwelling within your memory, burning with this overwhelming egotistical rightfulness.

Puppeteer: We've synchronized with countless consciousnesses over the years. So, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that your deep collective subconscious came to life. And with it, the Solid State is complete. It's time for us to go forth. Let's become a vanishing mediator and go take an active hand in the next society.

Also... for the SSS article, I'll look for an unclosed ref tag... its usually the cause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)