Talk:.hack//Sign

.hack//Sign was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 29, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Anime and manga Mid‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been featured on the Anime and manga portal.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Reference for the number of episodes

The reason why the episode list link disables the ref is that it adds a wikilink tag around the number, which leads to a markup error. But seriously, does the article really need a reference for the number of episodes? ^^; Of course, "everything should be referenced" is the official morning mantra of all Wikipedians but this is driving it into paranoia IMO. No featured anime article currenty references its episode number in the infobox (and I can't recall any of them to ever have done it). --Koveras ^☭ 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the reason... great, I learned something new lol. Anyway, this was referenced because at the time it was a controversial issue: people changed the number of episodes all the time, to 28 or 29, depending of which release or version they watched. But maybe this won't happen now so let's re-add the episode list and see. Kazu-kun (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead already details the situation with the different episode counts, so changing them in the infobox should constitute an act of vandalism... If it continues, however, we can use editor comments to ask the newcomers to read the lead first. AFAIK the editor comments are mostly harmless to markup. --Koveras ^☭ 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references?

Is it worth noting .hack//SIGN's many many references to both eastern and western culture? It's fairly rare to see an anime that references Samuel Beckett and Roman Holiday amongst other pop culture topics. The only anime I've seen that's more referential is Serial Experiments Lain. I just wondered if it deserved a mention or something.

Android 93 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a section like that in the past, but I think it was labeled as "trivia" and removed... --Koveras ^☭ 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writers

(From Kazu-kun's edit comments)
notability has nothing to do with this kind of info

Please explain this.

Also the official web site has the whole screenplay signed with Ito's name.

Where? This one certainly credits them. (Background->Story) - Kuukai2 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was talking about this page. Of course each episode has its specific writer credited, but the main guy is Ito. Actually most anime articles don't even list the writer, just the director. So having the main writer listed here is more than enough. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's sort of different from what you said. That's just Ito releasing the scripts he personally wrote, I don't think it in any way implies that he's the only notable writer. In fact, the same site prominently features Michiko Yokote and credits her as "an amazing screenplay writer" who "in .hack, writes mainly for the TV anime series," and features many tales about her life on the project. I'm not sure why don't think these writers should be in this article. It's one thing if they're uncredited, but they were properly rolled at the beginning of every ED. On any good article, if someone does over 10% of the writing for a project, I'd expect their name to be in it somewhere. All I can say for the other articles is that they're obviously not complete... One example of an article that does do this sort of thing, though, is Lucky Star (manga) where they credit someone who only directed 4 episodes. - Kuukai2 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the guy listed in the LS article was the director, not a writer. Even if it was for only 4 episode, during that time he was in charge of the whole project. Anyway, notability has nothing to do with the info listed in the infobox. Only content from third-party sources bears notability. That is, the content from reviews, scholar papers, magazine articles, etc. As long as they're no related to the production of the series, they constitute third-party coverage. On the other hand, info such as release dates or crediting info has no encyclopedic value, no notability. That kind of info is included only as an add-on for the readers to have a better grasp on the series, and also for context. Therefore, since listing more writers would only clutter the infobox, it's better to just list the main one, or none (like in most articles). Kazu-kun (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't in charge of "the whole project." For one thing he didn't write the script. The screenwriter is responsible for almost all of the dialogue and story events. The director might give some input, but drafting the story is not a primary part of their job. In SIGN, the direction certainly plays a large part, but the story and dialogue aren't too shabby either.

Ok, thanks for explaining that. But, if those are the criteria for notability, what makes spinoff articles like "Subaru" notable? Also, I think it's simply a matter of opinion that this would "clutter" the infobox. All of the featured anime articles (minus Mana, which is a series article and weird) managed to weasel their way into FA status while having more rows in their TV Anime box than this one currently has. I'm not very convinced that a comma-delimited list of the writers will ruin the feng shui... - Kuukai2 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right, character articles such as those are not notable. And because of that they're tagged to be merged into the list of characters. Not all the content of course. Just a bit from each character article. It'll be easier to add encyclopedic content to the list of characters. Besides the guidelines are a bit softer when it comes to lists.

About the writer... what makes them so special anyway? I mean, if we put the writer there, why not the composer, or the animation director? why not the whole staff? Certainly they're all important, but the thing is that the infobox is not meant for that, because there's no encyclopedic need for it. We have the director because he's the leader of the team, but there's no need for more than that. In conclusion, I think we should remove the writer all together. What do you think? Kazu-kun (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X, one of the better Japanese visual culture-related featured articles in my opinion, lists the art director (without any sort of 3rd-party reference) and writer. I know the difference between Featured Articles and perfect articles, but my point is that this was accepted by the FA people, it seems to nicely supplement the other information in the article, and also it doesn't seem to "clutter" (even with all the individual professions stuffed into the box). I suppose the writers could actually be added to the episode list instead, but it seems that you're on a different page from the people who built these fields into the infobox in the first place... - Kuukai2 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice actors?

This article could be improved with a cast list of the actors who performed the voices. ~~The only one I know of is that Isabelle Volpe recorded the voice of Mimiru~~.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just discovered that Volpe portrayed her in the French version. Still, a voice actor section would help.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per guidelines only the original (Japanese) and English voice actors are to be included, and they already are in the List of .hack characters, so there's no need to have them here too. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that List of .hack//Sign characters now redirects to this page (I assume it didn't when you posted). So, those voice actors are no longer in that 'page', and should probably be here now?

-- Wex 20:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link in my previous post. The new link is in the article already, specifically in the navbox at the bottom of the page (when it says "characters"). Unfortunately the voice actors are no included there yet, so I'm going to do it now (at least for the Sign characters). EDIT: done. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. (^_^)V

-- Wex 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Non-Free Images

Detailed breakdown of images that appear in violation as excessive:

File:Hack3bw.jpg is completely unnecessary. An additional DVD cover does not need to be illustrated to enhance ones understanding that it came with a CD. It is purely illustrative.
File:Papa-sign1.jpg claims it illustrates "The real-world scenes' raw presentation denotes the predominance of The World over reality" which is purely an OR interpretation of the image as the source itself does not illustrate the same scene. It is also, obviously, not necessary for ones understanding if the source itself didn't feel the need to illustrate it either.
File:Depresed tsukasa.jpg one does not need an illustration of "somber scenery" to understand the scenery is somber; again, does not significantly enhance ones understanding of the material, therefore not complying with WP:NONFREE.

FYI, the continued removing of the non-free tag was extremely inappropriate, particularly when one did not even allowed time for an explanation to be written up while also demanding that instead of an overall tag for referencing problems, I go source by source and tag each that has a problem. This is classic WP:OWNership issues, but I will assume in good faith that the reverter is not aware that removing templates purely because one disagrees with them is now a warnable offense, as is edit warring over them while demanding an explanation but now allowing time for one to be posted.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should always post you reasons before tagging, as it is essential for people to be able to work on whatever issue you have. You should make that a habit.

Anyway, I'll go trough the references later, but first let's review the images:

File:Papa-sign1.jpg, this is a concept explained in that particular reference, so is in no way OR, and it's necessary because you can't really tell, unless you have seen the series, how the real world is portrayed. And you know articles have to be written thinking on people who knows nothing about the subject.

File:Depresed tsukasa.jpg, again, readers who know nothing about the series need the visual aid to see what's the deal with this visual symbolism the section talks about.

File:Hack3bw.jpg, I will agree with this one. It's the only one who is there for identification only. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the actual guideline. No explanation is required for tagging at all, much less before it is done. Only NPOV/dispute tags strongly suggest an explanation be posted at all. If you disagree with a tag, the appropriate thing to do is ask, either on the article talk or the tagging person's talk, and wait for an explanation, not just remove it because you don't like it. Particularly in a GA or higher article that should not have such issues. And no, readers do not need a visual aid to see what the "symbolism" is (of which there is none). Saying "the real world is portrayed in greyscale" is more than sufficient for the first picture. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you think they don't need it, I think they do. Clearly, since it's a matter of opinions, we need more people to reach some consensus, and since it's you how have issues with these images, you should bring more people here to discuss this.

And this ""symbolism" is (of which there is none)", is what I call OR, since there are sources stating the opposite. BTW, you're quite difficult to work with, you know, with that attitude of yours and all.

And whether the guidelines say anything about it or not, it's still important to state your mind when using tags, since they're really broad, and so they're pretty useless when it comes to trace whatever particular problem they're supposed to indicate. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already notified the project and have now also asked at NONFREE itself. And please note that you did not give me time to so much as start to type up any explanation at all nor did you ask for one, you just removed the tag. Nor was the unfounded personal remark called for: plenty of people work with me just fine. Nothing wrong with my attitude, you are the one who began this entire thing on a hostile tone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if there are plenty of people who work with you just fine; there are also a lot who don't. But anyway, this isn't the first time I tell you that tags alone don't help, that you need to state your mind so that others can work with you. I don't mean to offend you, and it's not that you have to do what I say, of course, but since we're all working together here on wikipedia, I think I ought to tell you what I think about the way you work.

And thanks for notifying them, btw.Kazu-kun (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to obtain a free image of the first, so that should be tossed. The third I think should also be tossed, as that's not conveying anything of necessity. The middle I am unsure of, though I'm leaning "removal" with that as well, as there are numerous non-frees here. I'd then move the Venice picture to where that one is. --Izno (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's in no way possible to obtain a free picture of the first (or any other for that matter) as we're talking screencaps here. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm? --Izno (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was talking about this one. But yeah, we already agree the one you mentioned could be removed. Anyway, let's hear more opinions. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the references, I think that Papa-sign1.jpg meets WP:FREE as it is used for For critical commentary; the other two just seem to be illustrations as said before. That said, it would be helpful to re-write the image caption to indicate that the images is showing how reality is portrayed (as described in the ref). The ref's point isn't just that reality is predominant, but that everyone is escaping some sort of painful reality when the log in; and the imagery of a black and white world with faceless people is one of the vehicles that the director uses to convey this idea. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on these:

Second set of box art covers - not necessary (and no, taking one's own photo of this is not going to make it free as it's still a 2D representation of 2D art.)
Both of the other two images seem to be easily described by text. Particular for the representation of the real world, you've explained it's B&W, faces not in shot or in shadow, and no dialog but just title cards. I'm pretty confident that I can envision what that is without seeing the image. However, one of the points in that section of text is that there is a stark contrast between "The World" and the real world imagery. It may be possible that instead of a single image here that one from the series that depicts a colorful populated crowd scene can be placed side-by-side with a better shot from B&W that depicts a more lifeless crowd or something to that effect. (Both would be non-free) (if you're lucky, there may be a shot for "The World" side that also grabs the architecture too and possibly replacing the other shot.) I say "may" only because I'm not sure if others would be satisfied by this. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say something, but now I'd just like to point out that this was entirely inappropriate: "I will assume in good faith that the reverter is not aware that removing templates purely because one disagrees with them is now a warnable offense, as is edit warring over them while demanding an explanation but now allowing time for one to be posted." --Raijinili (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that inappropriate. He demanded an explanation, but didn't give even one minute for me to post it. And yes, removing maintainence templates for no reason beyond "I don't like it" is now a warnable issue: {{Uw-tdel1}}. He gave no valid reason for removing templates pointing to a large policy violation in a GA article. The "best" articles on Wikipedia should not be blatantly violating policy, and denying there is even the appearance of an issue is what is not appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to talk to you.

Luckily, I just discovered that there's a whole section of the Etiquette article on this: WP:INDCRIT --Raijinili (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The box art doesn't seem significant enough to require an image since there is already an infobox image. About the other images, I think one screenshot can be quite helpful for the reader to understand the anime style. But three (counting File:Hack-newtype1.jpg as well) seems excessive when all they do is illustrate their caption (which would be fine if they were free, but they aren't). I don't know this TV show, but I'd pick one very illustrative screenshot (could be a new one) instead of the three. This is a GA, so it should be a good example to other articles for our Free m:mission, not have the same image problems that so many other popular fiction articles have. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You said "one screenshot can be quite helpful for the reader to understand the anime style". But that's the point: this anime has a layered style, as it portrays both the "inside" of a game (MMORPG) and the real word, in two totally different ways. Therefore, to do what you said (help the reader to understand the anime style), at least two screenshots would be needed: one for the game setting, like the one in the Background section, and one for the real-world setting. Note, again, that I'm following you're reasoning here. Kazu-kun (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who this comment was addressed to, but there are already screenshots in the article that are mostly likely in view when someone sees the offline screenshot. The image caption could encourage readers to compare with the style in the image above. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other .hack anime and manga?

Why are the different .hack anime and manga articles so disconnected? I was wonder when which ones there were and which were made in what order, but the articles are all over the place and seem to almost ignore the relevance of each other. They need to be organized so that people can understand which ones are which and their relation to each other. Repku (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat explained in the .hack series article. Unfortunately, that series article needs quite a bit of work as well. The manga/novel series aren't directly related to .hack//sign so this would probably be more appropriate for the talk page of the series article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]