Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:26, 30 September 2014 editBgwhite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users547,151 edits →Easter egg: Yes, firm← Previous edit Revision as of 06:37, 30 September 2014 edit undo84.127.80.114 (talk) →Easter egg: WP:FOOLS prevents the jokes.Next edit →
Line 154: Line 154:


:::Yes. As ] states, "'''All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace.''' Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism." Then two rows down, "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day." There are no jokes in articles, period. On April 1st, the Main page has "jokes", but true statements. The linked articles do not contain any jokes whatsoever. ] (]) 06:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC) :::Yes. As ] states, "'''All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace.''' Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism." Then two rows down, "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day." There are no jokes in articles, period. On April 1st, the Main page has "jokes", but true statements. The linked articles do not contain any jokes whatsoever. ] (]) 06:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: Therefore, ] prevents all jokes in article namespace, even those that would improve Misplaced Pages, right? ] (]) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


== Automatic archiving == == Automatic archiving ==

Revision as of 06:37, 30 September 2014

Good articleGhost in the Shell (video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 12, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
March 3, 2014Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnime and manga Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconScience Fiction
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Niwi3 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to review this article. However, I see a number of serious issues that need to be addressed before the article passes a GA review.

Lead
  • "is a cyberpunk video game developed by Exact for the PlayStation" - Use video game genres instead of visual/narrative genres.
 Done by someone else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead does not summarize adequately the body of the article since it does not contain information about the gameplay and development.
  • The phrase "The game had received mainly positive reviews for its graphics, animation, and music, including its unusual wall-climbing mechanics with some negative targeting its tedious gameplay and low difficulty" needs some copyediting to make sense.
 Done Just added today by Niemti. That is not my fault. Though easily fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Gameplay
  • The general reader does not know what a "think tank" is.
 Done
  • The section is incomplete: What is the game? an RPG? a shooter? an action adventure? How does the player progress in the game? By completing levels? objectives? Are there any bosses? Does the Fuchikoma have health? What is the difference between using Machine-guns vs Bombs? Overall, this section leaves more questions than answers.

 Done

Plot
  • Who is Aramaki? Motoko? Batou? Sawamura? An article must not assume that the reader is intimately familiar with its topic.
I don't know how much is really necessary for this; you do not interact or control them - they have no backstory and play no significant role. You are asking the equivalent of a backstory on Yoshi for Super Mario World; I can do this if you want though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Cast
  • I personally think this section is unnecessary, mainly because some voice actors are unknown.
The names are all in the credits, but they are not specifically drawn to the cast members by names in the credits. There is no harm in having it as it is another aspect of the game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Development and Release
  • I would suggest merging both sections into one two-paragraph section called "Development and release".
 Done Already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Who developed this game? The content of the lead and infobox should appear in the body of the article.
  • T*HQ -> THQ
 Done From the article, "Though always formally called THQ, the company typically traded as T*HQ in video games' box arts and instruction manuals." Though it has been fixed already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done The first usage is linked. Per WP:OVERLINK every usage should not be linked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "The North American release date was on October 31, 1997. The European release date was on July 1, 1998." -> The game was released in North America on October 31, 1997 and in Europe on July 1, 1998.
 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Related media
  • This section should come after the reception section.
Reception
I sorta disagree about this; wouldn't it just be a template for the sake of adding a template? Lucia, any thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
References
  • Inconsistent date formats ("3 September 2013" in ref 11, "May 23, 2003" in ref 23, "2013-07-06" in ref 28, etc).
  • ref 21 is a dead link.
  • ref 11 and 21 are the same.
  • ref 28 lacks author and date.
 Done Referencing date formats are not a GA issue, but I can fix them quick enough. Also... Ref 21 is not dead. 11 and 21 are not the same and I don't see which one it is. Could you tell me besides mere numbers, they seem to have been swapped about. The GameSpot one, #18 did go 404, but I provided the archive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ref 11 and 16 (gamespot review) are the same.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion, there are enough significant issues in the article in that merely placing on hold is not going to do any good, so I am going to fail this GA nomination soon. Please, feel free to re-nominate once the issues have been addressed. You may also wish to request a peer review before you re-nominate so that everything is good to go. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to discussion on Niwi3's talk page, he replied on mine, but doesn't seem to want to discuss it now that he's set on it being failed. I just got home and took care many of the issues already. After waiting so long, it just seems a waste to have this failed over a bunch of already fixed issues that took less than half and hour to correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for waiting so long to respond; it was 2 A.M. when I posted my last comment. In any case, there are still issues that need to be addressed: the gameplay section needs to be expanded and therefore referenced. After that, you are welcome to re-nominate the article. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add this phrase to the intro, LB did. Yes, there are bosses, and a health bar (and a bar for machine gun heating, if I remember correctly). --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! It's fixed and I've put it up for GAR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Some Additional Comments

I'm going to add some comments on some issues I have noticed just in the Intro part of the article:


1) "...video game developed by Exact and Production I.G for the PlayStation." --Production I.G is listed as a developer in the opening paragraph, but is absent from the right side overview box under Developer.

2) "It was localized by THQ and released in North America on October 31, 1997 and in Europe on July 1, 1998." --This sentence leads you to believe that both the NA and European version were published by THQ, but the right side overview box has SCEE listed as providing publishing for the European version of the game. This is inconsistent.

3) "Ghost in the Shell's plot revolves around a new recruit of Public Security Section 9 and investigate and combat the Human Liberation Front." --This gramatically does not make much sense.


As you can see, I think there are just minor issues overall with grammer, inconsistent information, and flow (the second paragraph in the Gameplay section is very choppy, for example). Just adding some insight if you want to work on getting this article closer towards GA status :) All the best --Mordecairule 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs)

I've fixed the issues you brought up, thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I will take up this article. I'll get to it as soon as possible, but it may be a couple of days. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, here we go.

Lead:

  • Nothing wrong here. Demonstrates all the salient points.

Gameplay:

  • Writing concise and well-phrased. Ably demonstrates salient points. All references work good, though I might update the url for ref 5. And possibly archive ref 4.

Plot: A few minor issues concerning grammar and manual of style.

  • "Section 9 were able to trace their communication and located their location at the Bay area however was a trap." Maybe "Section 9 are able to trace their communication and locate their location at the Bay area, however is a trap." would be better.
    • "However is a trap" still isn't right. I'd suggest changing it to "Section 9 are able to trace their communication and locate their location at the Bay area; however, it is a trap." Tezero (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Batou and Togusa encounter obstacles that disable them from moving forward, leaving the Rookie to be the only available member." I think "Batou and Togusa encounter obstacles that prevent them from moving forward, leaving the Rookie as the only available member."
  • "After the ordeal, it was revealed that Sawamura planned". Possibly "is" rather than "was" in that part of the sentence.
  • "however Zebra 27 intervene and wanted to take over the nuclear reactor to extort money from Sawamura.". Perhaps change to "however Zebra 27 intervened and wanted to take over the nuclear reactor to extort money from Sawamura.".
  • "Kusanagi declares the entire ordeal a training mission for the Rookie, but criticized his over dependency of the Fuchikoma." Maybe change to "Kusanagi declares the entire ordeal a training mission for the Rookie, but criticizes his over-dependency on the Fuchikoma."

Developemnt:

  • Clear read and sound-looking references.

Release and promotion:

  • You might want to archive refs 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, but that's entirely optional as all are operational.

Reception:

  • Ref 31 is the same as ref 5 4. This needs dealing with.

That's all I can find here. All relatively minor. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I made most of the necessary changes, only one sentences I that Tezero didn't agree with was difficult to figure out. The rest i don't think will affect Ga status such as archiving but i have been worried about it and will ask someone with more knowledge on how to archive or if someone can do it for me. Lucia Black (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also i'm not sure what you mean by ref 31 nd ref 5 being the same, i just checked and they don't appear the same, i even clicked both links. Lucia Black (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I meant ref 4. Has been corrected. And you can archive urls here. Just copy and paste the url, hit "browse history" and either select the latest archived version that shows what you want or, if it hasn't been done yet, archive it. The site doesn't show any signs of going down in a hurry. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Like i said, i dont know how to archive myself, i know how to search through archives already placed. Lucia Black (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I can do it if you like, unless that would invalidate my ability to review this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For now i don't think its necessary to pass or fail the article. I think we covered most of them. i personally dont think it would be harmful i've seen other editors intervene with certain minor issues. Anchiving these pages would help preserve the GA though if it passes. Lucia Black (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sorting out the archiving. Give me a little time to go over it again, and I'll get back with a final verdict. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Pass: Nothing wrong that I can see. All issues sorted. Yep. I think a pass for this article. Good work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FA preparation

WikiProject Video games has an A-class, that could have been the next step. Anyway, the peer review nominator asked for the FA-class. These are the criteria.

Compliance

Feel free to overwrite this status to reflect the discussion.

    1. well-written:
    2. comprehensive:
    3. well-researched:
    4. neutral:
    5. stable:
    1. a lead:
    2. appropriate structure:
    3. consistent citations:
  3. Media:
  4. Length:

Discussion

Toolbox

As stated in the peer review, I will work in this article, although I will take my time. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, may ChrisGualtieri provide the page number as requested? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do not waste my time with nonsense when I am citing HighBeam with a direct link for something. I don't know or have to give any page it was on in some physical paper because I am not citing some physical copy. You should know better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The table of contents is a bit short but acceptable; that can be improved later with more material. The structure is appropriate for the current state. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I should point that MOS:HEADINGS says: "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well". May ChrisGualtieri explain why WP:AND does not apply? May the user indicate what material is considered "legacy" in "Reception and legacy"? May the user propose a better term than "marketing" to encompass "release" and "promotion"? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess its best to probably put it to "Reception" only and drop the legacy aspect. The other may be better split into sections instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, release dates are tightly integrated in "Release and promotion" and the section is too short for a split. If ChrisGualtieri feels that "Marketing" does not represent both terms, then the title should be left as "Release and promotion". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I don't think WP:AND applies to section headings, but to article titles that combine two different topics. Note that the guideline says "generally apply", not entirely apply. On top of that ] doesn't actually ban the use of "and" form article titles, just suggest finding a more general term if available. If no reasonable overarching title is available, then "and" is acceptable. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations look consistent enough. Perhaps some quotes from "Reception" would be better placed in the references. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead section is fine. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge and seeing the terms ролик/cutscene, меню/menu, анимация/animation and механич/mechanically, it looks like the edits and are supported by the Russian source. Unfortunately, the editor does not advertise to be a Russian speaker; perhaps one of them could confirm this content. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem in the paragraph about the making-of video: it is almost without substance. The video looks like having much more interesting information about development; unfortunately, my Japanese skills are close to none. Perhaps an intermediate level user such as Tezero could help; he is the only one I have found in the WikiProjects so far. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I could give it a shot if I had the video. Tezero (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero may try the code bwC7vpk3_rY. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Uh... what do I do with that code? It's not a URL or anything. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair use images

I disagree with the WP:NFCC#1 compliance of the images in this article; it is not clear that no free equivalent could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The fair use rationale is based on the assumption that copyrighted artwork is not replaceable.

Is the cover art replaceable? The HG101 review shows three different covers, so this specific image is replaceable. The others may be copyrighted too, but what is the encyclopedic purpose? Identification and commentary? I only see a cartoon girl and a red artifact. Does new official artwork mean a different game? How are the copyrighted alternatives different from fan art?

Is the screenshot replaceable? Certainly, the review shows many examples. What is the encyclopedic purpose? To illustrate the game mechanics and graphics. There are games with free equivalents, SimCity vs. Micropolis; with free alternatives, Tetris Attack vs. Blocks of the Undead; and without free clones, such as Ghost in the Shell, since I cannot remember this kind of 90° rotation in a free game. However, the problem is similar, how is a free 3D rendering illustrating the same mechanics any different?

It may not be easy, but it is feasible to replace these images. Do these replacements compromise verifiability? Not at all, as shown in Debian; the technique is to use a free image illustrating the point and a citation to the non-free source. If we use our own words to express copyrighted text, why should not we use our own images to express copyrighted artwork? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely misinterpreting WP:NFCC#1. It is not that the image is replaceable by another non-free image, but it is not replaceable by a free equivalent. The fact that there are other non-free images does not mean that there is a free equivalent...somewhere. Also, we don't replace cover images with fan art, which are also under copyright as a derived works, thus non-free. The screen shots cannot be replaced for similar reasons. If they don't come from the game, they are not an illustration of game's visuals and gameplay. You can't compare this game with SimCity because this game was never released under a free-use or compatible license. And your Tetris Attack example is a red herring. No where are images of Blocks of the Undead used to replace images in Tetris Attack. —Farix (t | c) 13:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
TheFarix is correct, you misunderstand NFCC here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Replaceability was my only objection. So, do TheFarix and ChrisGualtieri think the "Media" criterion is met? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I doubt a 3rd image would add anything useful, but perhaps an appropriate image for the staff - you will not find any image of Shirow that we can possibly use. He does not allow photos to be taken and will not appear in video interviews. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-free staff photographs do not add value. I would use this Fuchikoma and reinforce content such as "the Fuchikoma were voiced by Katsue Miwa". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That image does not support anything in the statement you quoted. And there is no indication that the sculpted model (or toy) has any direct connection to the video game. —Farix (t | c) 15:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, its not even "on model" - whereas it is at least feasible to get photos of the director. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
An image from the "Making of game" video would be illustrative, as ChrisGualtieri may remember, but it is non-free too. If no more images can be added, the article cannot be improved regarding the "Media" criterion. Do the editors think this criterion is met? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there really anything else in the article that needs an illustration? Seems you are searching for an image just to have a third image in the article. —Farix (t | c) 16:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the game is controlling a Fuchikoma, this article would be significantly enhanced with an image of a Fuchikoma or something that resembles one. This means using the image I mentioned, or better but free; a free image is suited to WP:TFA. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That image has nothing to do with the video game, thus shouldn't be in the article. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
For the record, this image was used by Sony Music Entertainment Japan. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has not improved regarding this criterion, so my initial assessment remains: neutral. The current image set might be an issue at the FAC process; it might not be. The discussion above and other edits show that the "Media" criterion has been reasonably prepared. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Easter egg

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and Misplaced Pages has a well-known tradition. The purpose of this edit is to present our very best joke to the reader: "clever puns rather than poop jokes". I have set up an example based on a quote from a cutscene that will show up on the special day. To preview it, the date "04-01" must be changed to the current month-day and "Show preview", then "Cancel" (do not "Save page"). I would like to ask editors to think about the best joke for this article.

The rules are currently against jokes in the article namespace; however, there is consensus against a complete ban of jokes. The Main Page is a prominent example allowed, featured articles are a target, and I believe that a well-designed joke does improve an article. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No Easter eggs. This is not Facebook or a game. It is not allowed, period. Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So, is this a firm rule? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. As WP:FOOLS states, "All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace. Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism." Then two rows down, "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day." There are no jokes in articles, period. On April 1st, the Main page has "jokes", but true statements. The linked articles do not contain any jokes whatsoever. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Therefore, WP:FOOLS prevents all jokes in article namespace, even those that would improve Misplaced Pages, right? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Since there are more than six threads and the article is being prepared to be featured, automatic archiving should be enabled. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories: