Template talk:Ghost in the Shell

Solid State Society

The movie Solid State Society is a part of the Stand Alone Complex series, which is a different series "universe" than the movie series. Despite the fact it's a movie, it does not fit in with the same plot line as the two movies Ghost in the Shell and Innocence. For this reason, I am removing Solid State Society from the movie series part of the template. It is still present on the Stand Alone Complex series part of the template.--SOCL 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider Name Change

I don't like how it says "by Masamune Shirow" when the films, OST, video games, etc. had nothing to do with him.--Stepusual (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to go ahead, be bold, and change the title to either simply "Ghost in the Shell" or "Ghost in the Shell franchise."--Stepusual (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It says "by Masamune Shirow" because the original manga series were written by him, and everything else in the franchise ultimately derives from those series. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Template cleanup pt3 proposed

Feel free to edit the below, it is not final yet. I would however recommend implementing it as soon as possible, both for the sake of standardization with other Anime templates, and since it is clearer to which "universe" any specific manga/movie/novel/video game belongs. G.A.S^talk 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks to your proposal (if you're curious about my reasoning behind any changes I've made, feel free to ask ;) ). However, I think I'm pretty much the only other regular contributor who's likely to give a lick about this particular reorganization (and it's something that's been bugging me for awhile anyways), so I'd say just do it. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Looks much cleaner/clearer now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say "by Mamoru Oshii"? Unless I'm mistaken, he was only involved with the first two films, not the manga or Stand Alone Complex. — A.M. (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed: it should have read "by Masamune Shirow" (the original creator). G.A.S^talk 04:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Heading "redundant"

Both Lucia Black and myself have reverted your attempts to edit the template that result in redundancies. Please take that as a hint.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also your blind revert removed my link to the Arise page I created.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The heading isn't redundant in the case of SAC. One ends up referring to the series, and one the individual show. I'm not sure how we get to "redundant" from there on that specific pair. In fact, that's why we can't do it this way for that specific link. Otherwise, the second and other items in the list are listing the incorrect items (in other words, they're in the wrong list).

As for the manga category, I can be flexible on that one. I'm not sure I like it now, but I'm not too worried on it. See my other version. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Its probably best to leave original manga in the subheading so it doesnt imply that they all fall within the same continuation. It also clashes with the article aswell. Stand Alone Complex tv show is the series so theres no confusion. Not only that but the Stand Alone Complex tv show and series are one article, so whether anyone is looking for either, their going to find both in the same article. so we dont need to worry about that. On another note, Arise series, depending if it gets more spin off articles could gain its own group. But thats depending in the future.

Just a minor issue, i preferred it to look like "Video games (PS2 - PSP)" in Stand Alone complex to make it look more organized, but thats just a personal preference.Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer "original", with the manga in the list. Otherwise it implies that all of them are about the manga...

Except it's not. There are multiple versions of the TV series. That link must come out of the header and into the main list.

No comment on Arise.

The reason I moved those out is because we should avoid nonlinks in the list part of the navbox. I don't like the way it looks now much more than you do, but I want to keep the lists to links. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you referring to with "Except its not". If you are referring to the Original manga and films, then i agree, but others may not see it that way at first glance when "Original" group includes the film and manga together. As for the "multiple versions" there are no multiple articles about the samething. All "Stand Alone Complex" articles spin off from the original "Stand Alone Complex" article that refers to the TV show and series. I dont know what you are referring to "multiple versions"? You're not being specific with your comments.Lucia Black (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd GIG is not about the link which is in the header. The episodes of 2nd GIG aren't either. Neither is Solid State. What I'm saying is that, you're treating that link as if it's about the series called SAC when the link is really about the first TV series called SAC. Does that make sense?

As for 'original', I am, again, kind of meh. I could go either way, though I'd still prefer my version. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok....im going to say...."what?" 1) its all one series, in reality its 2 seasons but the second season is significantly different from 1st season and notable on its own (barely as all other reviews dont give much "reviewing"). 2)The first article already mentions and provides links to all the other articles in it. So even though it is mainly about the first season, all related media is mentioned in that article. So "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" is mainly about 1st season, it still encompasses all Stand Alone Complex media.Lucia Black (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The placement of the link to the original manga aside (and the video games thing), both Lucia and I disagree with your decision to have "Stand Alone Complex" as the group title and "Stand Alone Complex" as an entry in the list. That's redundancy. Izno, just leave the template be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I opened a talk page discussion because I think you're wrong, and I'll probably be inviting a third opinion or two to see if I'm completely insane in why I have an issue with it. --Izno (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed redunant. But "Film, 2: Innocence" is confusing (should be rather "second film" or something). --Niemti (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But Izno your reasons against it are odd that if you think about thoroughly, will only make you think in circles. Your against it because you claim the article is about the 1st season and not the whole series but if it did that completely than there wouldnt be a need for a SAC group. As for niemti, maybe splitting it off from "original series" and "film series.Lucia Black (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The group is because of their titles, as in the group of articles in sum could be called the series "GitS: SAC". The article linked in the group header right now is only about the 1st TV series. Is that so difficult to grasp? The need for the title to be separate from the link is quite obvious to me, because of these two facts, regardless of a "need" for the latter items. Take for example Template:Digimon in the World/Battle series columns. We don't link the first games in the subheaders because the subheaders aren't about the games, they're about the series of each as wholes. I can point to hundreds of other templates where this is the case. --Izno (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Izno, perhaps it is also redundant at {{Digimon}}. Just because you have it set up on one template does not mean that's how it should be set up on all templates just because you like it that particular way. Also you're not really making any sense.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I did not set it up there. That is just a quick example. I could point to hundreds of other such templates.
2. It's not redundant. "World" in that case isn't about the singular game "World", it's about the series of games called (starting with) "World". How doesn't that make sense? That's all I'm trying to point out here. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is redundant here to have "Stand Alone Complex" right next to "Stand Alone Complex". And it is redundant there to have "World" right next to "World".—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that but that doesn't make it true. You still haven't responded to my point. --Izno (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it not redundant to have the same phrase twice in a row, with just one instance of it linked to an article? It doesn't matter if you are referring to one item as the "series" and another item as the "season". The fact is we can eliminate the textual redundancy by just combining the two items into one and be done with it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree, as we risk confusing our readers otherwise. I think I'm definitely going to solicit a third opinion on this matter, because I appear not to be making headway. --Izno (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the 1st season mainly not "only". It mentions the second season briefly as well as the video games and novels. Not only that but if it did cover it all, there would be no need for a "stand Alone Complex" group in the template. Your arguments arent well thought up because they contradict.Lucia Black (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Izno, you're not making any headway because you have three separate editors who disagree with you on whether or not the item is redundant (which the three of us think it is). Soliciting an opinion at WP:3O is going to be fruitless.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter of a third opinion is irrelevant. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It does when it's three vs. one, where a third opinion has also been given.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion is usually for tie breaking. So if with 1 against 1, 2 against 2, 3 against 3, it would be more appropriate to ask for third opinion. What you couldve asked was RfC.Lucia Black (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

related articles section

The template should be directly ghost in the shell related. There have been no references within the series specifically to appleseed other than that they share the same year (2029-2030). Theres have been actually bigger references to other works of masamune shirow, such as cameos.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So we add everything. Simple enough.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Masamune adds several reference through multiple works, their not relevant enough. Same thing happens with CLAMP as they make cross overs, however thats much more related than a minor reference. Youve proven nothing to make appleseed kept. There is physical evidence to deem it worthy in the template.Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Appleseed is a related work by Shirow and exists within the same universe as far as I'm aware.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No their not in the same universe. Have you read appleseed? And their other articles related to shirow, doesnt mean it belongs in the template specific for ghost in the shell.Lucia Black (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Episodes link

Why do you have a problem with it not being in the parans? It looks horrible and produces bad html. --Izno (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's formatted that way so it matches the rest of the template and every other template out there. Lists of episodes are generally placed in parentheses, particularly if they are listed after the show that they're a part of.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not good enough. See above reasons. Consistency does not trump both looks and bad html. --Izno (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would give me a chance to respond. You are the only one who thinks it looks horrible and I have no idea what you mean by "bad html". I'm using a quirk in the formatting to produce a subset that looks like the other subsets in the template and displays perfectly fine within all browsers as far as I am aware. What I think you don't understand is that you made a bold edit, I reverted it, and then you should have started a discussion instead of assuming that just because someone else edited the template in the form you put it in then that means they agree with your formatting and you're allowed to edit war over it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the template into a form that I believe resolves a good portion of the issues that have come about since you began editing the template, Izno. I have eliminated the separate group for SAC and made a single "Media" entry, encompassing all visual forms that the franchise has taken.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

very small issue. The parenthesis isnt very necessary since stand alone complex is in its own subsection. But i personally dont have a strong opinion for either, the parenthesis do help a bit with organization.Lucia Black (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, why did you revert my consolidation of all of the content into a single "Media" section? What was "inaccurate and confusing"? What was really confusing was the fact that we treated SAC as separate. Now it's listed alongside the original manga and the Arise reboot.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

1), it was never confirmed to be a reboot, it is simply a prequel series. But even then, we cant actually say it falls within a specific universe (the manga uses the fuchikomas, the film doesnt so both obviously are alternate universes). So the Arise series is a series of its own. 2)we didnt treat stand alone complex. The edits just affect the outcome of future edits. Originally we had "original series" group, and "Stand Alone complex" group. Whoever moved it to "franchise" didnt fully think of the outcome of future edits. Theres just too much media to actually have one group, especially if each one falls in a different universe. Stand Alone complex has its own section to help navigate between stand alone complex related articles. Once "Arise" gets a large number of articles, Arise will also get its one group aswell. 3) the innacuracy was naming the manga by its japanese name. That will only cause confusion. Kokaku kidotai is the japanese name for ghost in the shell, its not reffered to as "kokaku kidotai: the ghost in the shell" in japanese news, only kokaku kidotai. The film is the only one referred to as such (and the video game but that falls in the manga's universe). I implore you to do further research.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

New version that solves most issues

This is the version i think will help make easy organization. The only bad thing is having Arise with "original" but i dont think that'll last once spin off media comes out.

Please do not treat this as a "oppose/support" vote count. This is simply one example to help find the best version that would satisfy most. Also to not change a whole structure for one minor issue.Lucia Black (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to split everything up. That is the issue with the way the template was originally. The films are adaptations of the original manga. Stand Alone Complex is an alternate telling. Arise is a further alternate telling. And your version still features the redundancy that plagued the original. It's better to treat everything as part of the media as a whole rather than categorizing everything down to separate pieces.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite that, for the longest time redundant issues were ignored. But the redundancy was bad between the same group. Plus, the original film started off as an adaptation (a very loose) but the sequel to that film created an alternate telling. It is not better to treat as media as a whole because ghost in the shell doesnt fit the basic media treatment other series have.Lucia Black (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well we have the original manga, the first film, it's video game adaptation and sequel, the Stand Alone Complex series, and now Arise. So if anything we can separate the film from the original manga, and still have Innocence and the video game related to that film.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The video game is not an adaptation to the film, the style was made to hold true to the original manga, and also has fuchikomas in it, what the film does not. The video game was inspired by the film, but based on the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the video game is based on the film which had Fuchikoma. The Tachikoma was not used until SAC.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your lack of knowledge very disturbing. I think you need to watch the film. No fuchikoma at all appear in the oshii's film version. Think-tanks appear, but not the fuchikomas. Fuchikomas are known to only appear in the manga and video game.Lucia Black (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. Our article on the game says otherwise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ill look at it. Other than that, best to know the series first hand.Lucia Black (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're just trying to argue for your preferred version rather than the more simplified version I attempted to create. If anything, my version just needs some organizational fixes rather than trying to divide everything up into more groups and introducing more redundancies and unnecessary formatting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You made several mistakes on your own, but thats not what matters, what matters is that you think over simplification means easy navigation, and it depends what you're simplifying. The "redundancy" issues that I brought up were the unnecessary usage of "Stand alone complex" back when it had "Stand Alone Complex" section. The second was between "Ghost in the Shell" film, manga, and video game being all in the same group without clarification, so it was overly redundant because it was in one group. Regardless, your version would need to use "Stand Alone Complex" back into those titles to make it easier to distinguish. So 2nd Gig will be S.A.C. 2nd Gig and Solid State Society will be Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society. And the same thing with Arise once more spin off media comes out.

Whatever decision you make, you will believe it is best for the template as long as it comes from you. And thats the problem, because of one little issue Izno raised, you had to transform it into something bigger and give the template a 180 just so you would comply to Izno's issues and still make it yor own conscious decision. And i'm sorry if thats assuming bad faith, but bad faith already came in when I reverted your bold edit and you reverted back disregarding BRD.Lucia Black (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

On redundancy, "2nd Gig" and "Solid State Society" are now within the parentheses created by the "Stand Alone Complex" entry. It should be understood that they are related when we have "Stand Alone Complex (2nd GIG - Solid State Society)" in the template. And the same will happen with Arise. That's why this format is useful. I attempted to come to a middleground with Izno. You just threw it all out and are suggesting this overly complex template in its place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the problems we're running into is that there are so many things all named the same (frustrating), with a handful of things which aren't. :/. Threw out some examples below. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

By series 1

By series 2

By media type

None of those are really any better. You've just divided everything up into more and more categories and causing more and more redundancies that neither Lucia nor myself wanted as well as some just incorrect categorizations. Having everything listed under "media" is just so much simpler.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I can live with the current template as you've got it. I'm not sure Lucia can though. The problem with it in my mind is that you've plopped everything into the same bucket, and that's difficult to use for the users. I guess the question I've got is that if you're willing to bucket them all in one, why not two and separate out GITS from SAC? That ends up looking like something between Lucia's and yours, which is what I want! Heh. Your concerns are not the only ones here. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the separation between the original manga, films, Arise, and SAC was sorta unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The separation exist so that SAC can still be allowed to be separated from the rest of the others (for navigational purposes), and still make sense. Since SAC is a parallel universe, and same for the film, it would only make sense to divide them from different continuities. Not only that but Ghost in the Shell is distinctly divided by parralel universes.

Either we go back to the original format before this, or we go to the new one i propose with some optional modifications. The one you made looks sloppy, we have paranthesis among paranthesis, and if we want to remove the excess of paranthesis that would mean adding "Stand Alone Complex" back to it all, which just makes that one box convoluted. and what you dont realize is if we try to organize we're eventually going to back to the original format we had anyways only this time it will be your conscious decision.

Do you realize how tiny little changes will affect future edits just to comply with that tiny unnecessary change? So this time illl be looking at little changes. It's not about whether i can "live" with it or not, its whether its the best way to search what you're looking for. Obviously not the best, and further organization will only lead back to the original.Lucia Black (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no real reason to separate SAC from the other media other than there's a lot of it and a little of the rest, and that is in my opinion not a valid reason to keep it separate. If anything, the format I've put everything in just needs a few tweaks to organization, but we should not split SAC off from the rest. Now we show that it comes between Innocence and Arise rather than treating it as some separate entity per your arbitrary division, and the arbitrary decision of the person who originally came up with this template.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh..you dont get it originally someone made an edit to make "Original series" to "franchise. Separating SAC from the rest makes it easier to navigate. Its not an article. Its a navbox.Lucia Black (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But there's no reason to separate SAC from the original films in the manner that someone did before.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because you say theres no reason, doesnt meant its true. The reasons are for navigational purposes. Its easier to find all SAC related articles if it has its own group. The current version looks sloppy and theres no way it will look better or easier to navigate without having its own group. A good example is the Metroid template. The template splits of Prime series from the original.Lucia Black (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still in it's own group. It's now just listed amongst the other media. I do not think splitting it off is suitable. And video games are a different entity entirely from this multimedia franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No its not, its within the "media" group. You're ignoring the fact that someone changed it to "Franchise". Dont bother saying "video game navbox are different from anime and manga navbox" because, again, not an article. You're so pent up treating it as such, but its not. Its...a....nav (as in navigation)....box. Navbox meant for navigation and navigation alone, the fact stand alone complex is split from the films and other is because is because theres too much media to put it all together for easy navigation.Lucia Black (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All of the SAC stuff is still organized with each other within the Media group. There does not need to be a separate SAC group. If at some point the Arise media becomes equally as prevalent, then I would acquiesce into having both a separate SAC group and ARISE group. Until then, it's just better to have them all considered part of the media as a whole.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

it looks sloppy. Paranthesis among paranthesis. Why should we wait for "Arise" spin off media to come out?Lucia Black (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's how the style is formatted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What kind of answer is that?Lucia Black (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The parentheses within parentheses is how the whole thing is set up from the start it's not my fault you think it's ugly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

its a bad move. And should go back to the original format. Its easier to navigate through articles without the excess of paranthesis getting in the way.Lucia Black (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't particularly impact the usage of other templates that have this format.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If there are other navboxes that use paranthesis on top of paranthesis excessively, than by all means tell me so i can find a better format to fix it. But right now, you care about OCD things such as "why split Stand Alone Complex away from the films and manga" which you already know, but refuse to accept it. I really dont think Izno's answer counts as 3O the same way mine didnt count as 3O when it came to the small detail relating to wether or not episodes should be in paranthesis.

So i will ask for a third opinion. Because clearly youre avoiding the main point of a navbox.Lucia Black (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how I am when I am simply combining things that are navigated between into a single line.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But not for navigational purposes. Dont give me the straight answer talk. Im done here. I know when im being played.Lucia Black (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: template issues

There is the dispute of whether having the original format before the recent edits of Ryulong should be brought back. The previous version had all "Stand Alone Complex" sub-series related articles into its own group and list for easy navigation. The current version has both merged together while still attempting for "Stand Alone Complex" to be a distinct list in the middle of the main list. Ryulong, does because he does not like that Stand Alone Complex was split from the rest of the media as i counter-argue that merging all media into one box wont help readers as the series has separate continuities crossing with the same media. To treat it by media alone will only confuse first time readers.Lucia Black (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you really opening an RFC? Wouldn't WP:3O suffice?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont you see the RfC box? This another form of 3O. One that doesnt involve just tie breaking by vote count but reaching consensus.Lucia Black (talk) :

It's a bit much in my opinion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

that makes no sense. Rfc and 3O are practically the same. Im not going to allow you to deviate the rfc further.Lucia Black (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC is just another major step that I wouldn't find necessary in such a minor debate over template formatting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You would let it go if it were "a minor debate". Don't resort to injecting fallacies to make debate. Lucia wants to start an RFC, let Lucia start an RFC. I personally support Lucia's version of the navbox. For some reason, you care just as much as we do. :') --Izno (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I do not think it is a suitable navbox as it splits everything up just for the sake of splitting it up and it has the redundant text from the original form, where we have "Stand Alone Complex" twice and "film" at least twice, without any proper place to put "Arise". I believe that the version I've instated is fine and is not "confusing" for readers. This is a navigation box designed to let readers go from Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence to Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell) in one step. It is not a means of conveying any information to the reader.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

split everything up for the sake of easy navigation. The redundancy problem again was because it was under the same group, now that their in different groups, its not an issue. Arise may stay within the original series and all future spin offs that have yet to gain spin off media may go in that box as it would be appropriate as it directly relates to the original. And readers can still go to the Laughing Man to Innocence. (But most of the character articles may need to be deleted, i doubt hideo kuze, goda, The Puppet Master and the laughing man are notable characters). Still, im more worried about NOT using this layout more than using mine. Which is why im fighting to go back to the version prior to your edits.Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed template still has "Stand Alone Complex" next to "Stand Alone Complex". The only thing you dislike about my version is that the 2nd Gig episode link is put in parentheses within another set of parentheses. You've yet to say why collecting all of the visual media within a single section is bad. It streamlines the template as we do not need to separate SAC or the films from the manga and Arise (in fact we probably do not need a separate article on the franchise as a whole and the manga).—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It was done quickly, but the point was to separate between continuations to show which media is more directly related between series. And again, this is more about going back to the original version prior to your recent edits more than using mine. But the fact one agrees (strongly enough) with that version shows promise. So lets save the discussion to my version for another discussion. And originally, I merged the manga with the series, but User:Chrisgualtieri or something like that (who showed signs being more familiar with video games than A&M articles) strongly against it and continued to disrupt until i inevitably gave up as A)literally no support from the wikiproject B) not the first editor to thought he knew it all, so the waiting game is what i started to play. So proposing to merge the manga and the series will probably need a new proposal in that resected page. The problem is that it convoludes the article excessively. We have a list in the middle of a list with another sublist.

separating stand alone complex from the other media is your main concern, so i organized it by series so that readers may find which media is related to which series. So I saywe go back to the original and be satisfied with it (unless you prefer my version over the original).Lucia Black (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think any level of the media should be separated from each other into individual groups. If we are going to separate it, then at least I want Arise to be treated separately for chronological purposes. I will draft up a version and post it here shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This would be good, even though it reintroduces the "episodes" by itself. This way everything is chronologically ordered instead of having Arise listed before SAC and if Arise produces more spinoff media we can turn it into a section like SAC.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing for Arise to have its own group, but when it merits one (have at least one spin off article). Thats why my version has Arise inside the original series, because its still directly related to the original. If the film series, only had one, it wouldnt merit its own group, and stick with the original group. So does this mean you prefer my version (with minor alterations)?

(edit conflict) that looks ridiculous. So here's a new proposal. I propose a new group with "Other" that allows Arise to have its own group.Lucia Black (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not need to label the groups other than Stand Alone Complex and we do not need to have the films separate from everything. We just need to present the different iterations in chronological order.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that looks horrible. Its practically the originally but Stand alone Complex is a subgroup awkwardly in the middle of the group while Arise at the bottom. This is more about Arise not getting its own group. Otherwise, there would be no change.Lucia Black (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Arise is most recent so it should be last, but there's no real suitable way to place it. I believe that this may be a suitable change though.

Thoughts?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

1) this is practically spam, this is about whether or not using the version you created for the bloody template. The fact that you're only willing to cooperate when the ideas come from you only, makes it incredibly obvious that it doesnt matter what version of the template comes out to, as long as it meets some arbitrary key aspect that doesnt really matter (and we all know thats "Arise" not having a group). The RfC is about reaching consensus to either Keep this version or go back to the original. A new template can be for a new discussion.

2)your template ideas look ridiculous, you have a subgroup in the middle of the group. And you add Arise so it has to be last. This is all about Arise not having a group and you continue to make it obvious its for that reason alone. Its practically vandalism.Lucia Black (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You've just accused me of spamming or vandalizing. I can see there's nothing else worth discussing with you. I'm going to implement this version.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryu, please realize that you're probably in the wrong here and that what you say doesn't always go. "I'm going to impliment [sic] this version" is on the wrong side of WP:OWN, no matter what Lucia says. I think you need to disengage. If it's just us three, and Lucia and I agree, then that's how it goes. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia has failed to assume any good faith on my part. I've changed the template back to what is essentially the version it was before you disrupted everything by going against the consensus Lucia and I came up with last month. The only difference between the original version and the one I've just made the template into is changing "Franchise" to "Media" and taking what was once the SAC group and making it a subgroup of the Media group. The only thing this "RFC" has shown is that Lucia is once again being impossible to work with and is once again accusing me of things because of her extremely low limit for what is and what is not considered acceptable discourse.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, your changes are the most disruptive. Instead of proposing and waiting for consensus here on the talk page, you've gone ahead and decided to OWN the template. I made the concession earlier on a particular point. I tried to make a change, taking into those concerns into account (changing parans to non-parans), and you took it and blew it up. Now you're in the hot seat and you can't take the heat, because both I and Lucia said "okay, that works for us". You really should disengage.

Your most recent change has also added superfluous information to the template which I can't even fathom the need for. Please. Stop editing the template and sit down and help us get to a middle ground. Lucia is absolutely right in that you seem to think that only your opinion is the most important. --Izno (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to reach a middle ground but I don't like any of Lucia's suggestions because she's dividing everything up into way too many categories. That's why I proposed the one I've turned the template into before (the one right above our comments here) but she seems to have ignored it completely and accused me of spamming or vandalizing. Are you seriously calling the release dates "superfluous information"? Again, all this started because you had to change the template back to your own preferred version without consensus, thus necessitating this whole debacle. Finally, let me point out the miniscule level of difference between the version Lucia and I agreed on weeks ago that we outruled you on and the one I've implimented today.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Except I didn't. The revision I cared for is here, way back when. The revision I said was working within some consensus that was apparently against me was here. Those are not the same changes.

The first edit which produced any contention whatsoever was not in fact mine, not in fact Lucia's, but yours. You moved it from a consensus position. Stop claiming that I am to blame. I have no objection to the new consensus except for one element, which Lucia agreed was an okay change (aside from changing lower-case to upper-case, which I'm fine with). --Izno (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish you two spent so much time & effort on either fixing on properly merging the characters. --Niemti (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

^This /10char. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

New idea

Seeing as the manga article was just an ancient content fork, I've merged it into the standard article. I would like to propose this as the new format for the template.

Things can be piped if necessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to this. I'll throw together some pipes in a second. --Izno (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The state = expanded entry will have to go, of course. I've only made it such so it can be viewed easily on this page. I'm surprised that the "(manga)" article has been around for so long. And also how convoluted the interwiki links were for the SAC video games.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add Mamoru Oshii, Kenji Kamiyama, and Production I.G into the template somewhere.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Naturally. I'm not sure I agree with your merge of the manga article to the series article, per WP:SUMMARY, though I won't contest it if you feel it in the best interests of the articles involved. Also threw the persons involved in. --Izno (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Ghost in the Shell was a manga first. I didn't have to do much to Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to merge the two together.

Anyway, I think we should keep the films names in full though. And at least "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" as the full name as well. I also think "by Masamune Shirow" is better left in the above parameter as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it was first is kind of irrelevant, considering what it has spawned. If you didn't have to do much to merge, I would guess that the series article wasn't written how it should be (see e.g. .hack, The Legend of Zelda, Naruto, or Fullmetal Alchemist even). They give overviews of each of the series elements, not the exact plot or story or what not.

I personally prefer that we shorten them due to that fear of duplication all of us have. :) I'm not so firmly attached to it that I'll put up too much of an argument. Example below?

The reason I moved the creator to the title is because that's how it's implemented in a number of other navboxes I've seen e.g. Template:Naruto or Template:Journey to the West, and it's more or less the standard for most book articles. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, support merge of manga into main article. I seem to recall this was contentious in the past. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

HELL NO. All the major franchise articles (and there are scores if not hundreds of them) are separate from their original works for a very good reason. I spent a good ammount of time separating the content and making a franchise infobox too. --Niemti (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ghost in the Shell (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were as far as I could tell functionally identical. Both discussed the manga. Both mentioned the films. Both mentioned Stand Alone Complex. Both mentioned Arise. The only difference between the two was that you didn't put any publication information on the original article and used that franchise infobox which is really useless when for Japanese publications there's {{Infobox animanga}}.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It ws not "the only difference", espiecally if you won't count Lucia Black's copy-paste like that. Oh, and also make a parent category for this franchise because there's none yet. And how it shoudl look like: Alien (film) vs Alien (franchise) (vs Predator). --Niemti (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There was still no use in separating them when the supposed "franchise" article is still about the manga first and foremost. And the category is covered.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And when there is this "use" in separating the franchise from the original work? It wasn't "about the manga first and foremost", it wasn; just trimmed enough yet.[1] --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oj, and THE CURRENT ARTICLE IS NOW ACTUALLY DUPLICATING ITSELF (sections "Creation and publication" from the manga article and "Manga" from the franchise article, mindlessly copy-pasted just below by someone). And no, the content from these 2 sections is not all the same, too. But it's total mess anyway. --Niemti (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you guys move the discussion on the location of that content over to Talk:Ghost in the Shell? --Izno (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And now it all just makes no sense to me. What is this article supposed to be about now, really? Is it about all things GitS? If so, is really everything there "by Masamune Shirow" as claimed in this very template? --Niemti (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this form because Ghost in the Shell is strongly not media organized. It's series organized. On another note, makes it even more complicated. We have ghost in the shell video games all together despite a couple not relating to eachother. It makes more sense to have "Stand Alone Complex" related media together. Also Arise isnt a film, one of the episodes was just released in theatres for promotion. I'm saying we go back to the original layout. No more ideas (not even mine). We just go back to one we had.Lucia Black (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The only series is SAC and whatever may become of the Arise films. I've organized this as {{X-Men media}} is organized, to some extent.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We had the original setup that fixed everything. Films are the original can be in one seeing as they all all dont have subtitles (except for innocence).Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The first film was THE GHOST IN THE SHELL/攻殻機動隊 and the second film was just イノセンス. Now that the manga page is back I've put it in the "above" section and moved the "by Masamune Shirow" to be next to it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty elegant way of doing it. Thumbs up from this guy. --Izno (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But thats not the english title. They are Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence. But since im outvoted....ill wait for a better time.Lucia Black (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)