Talk:.hack//Sign/Archive 1

.hack//SIGN Complete Collection DVD Set

I noticed that there were different numberings for the episodes on this set, which I recently purchased. In the last CD, it has 2 extra episodes, which are 'Intermezzo' and 'Evidence'. 'Intermezzo' is numbered on the DVD as #26 and 'Evidence' as #27. I noticed that 'Evidence' is not even in this episode list (at least its redone one), so I thought I would bring this to the attention of the board. I believe that, if not changed, that this should be at least added to the episodes list, like this: {27. Intermezzo (numbered as 26 in Complete Collection DVD Set).} If that would be plausible, I would be made a very happy man. T.z0n3 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The region 1 release screws with the actual release order of the episodes. For the show's television runs in both Japan and the USA, the recap episode, Evidence, was aired with the rest of the episodes as is normally the case for clip shows and recaps. I've changed the main article to reflect this. Tony Myers 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for your expertise. I was wondering about that, although I didn't think that would be what was intended to happen. My apologies for any problems I created. T.z0n3 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting point

Well, there's a suitable starting point for expanding this article. I'm a little hesitant to do a more detailed plot (as I'm still not sure I understand the entirety of the series myself), but I'm willing to add pieces later. I've also set up .hack//SIGN as a redirect to this page (as apparently it's somewhat difficult to link to .hack//SIGN instead of "dot hack sign") We should definately reconsider moving it and changing this to a redirect page in the future if possible though.

Pipian 19:29 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the difficulty linking to .hack//SIGN myself; as you can see these work fine with no link tweaking. Does anyone know why the article is at its present name? - Hephaestos 22:44 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I wrote it here as Emperorbma changed the link from .hack//SIGN to dot hack sign on List of anime. I merely carried the naming convention over for dot hack and the various .hack series listed on that page. I imagine it can be changed fairly easily however. - Pipian 23:19 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and switch the .hack pages around to the standard naming practices (.hack//SIGN, etc.) -- Pipian

Unison

There is a 28th episode now, I think. Called UNISON?

It's an OAV, along with the 27th episode. -- Pipian

Well, should we include both or neither?

I think I'll just make it "26 episodes on TV and 2 OAV episodes"

• Unison actually takes place after the second season, the name of which translates to "Legend of Twilight" but is commonly referred to as "Legend of the Twilight Bracelet", which seems to be the closest English translation of the intended title. Unison is basically the characters from the first season meeting the characters from the second season, which features only (a redesigned) Aura, Helba, and Ginkan (Silver Knight, if you saw it in America) makes a cameo, from the first season. Either they're two seasons, or they're two completely seperate Animes set in the dot-hack universe. (As dot-hack is the only Anime I follow, I don't know all the ins and outs of the culture.) - Dark Reality

Uh, no. "Unison" doesn't take place after .hack//Tasogare no Udewa Densetsu (.hack//Legend of the Twilight Bracelet, or .hack//Legend of the Twilight outside of Japan). In "Unison", the characters include the real Kite and BlackRose, not Shuugo and Rena, who later inherited the "skins" of the .hackers. This episode also alludes to the rivalry between Mimiru and BlackRose that was humorously expanded on in "Gift". Aura's look in "Unison", "Gift" and all of .hack//LotTB mirrors how she appears in the games. The Trashman 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

About the Characters

Um, I don't believe there is enough info on the characters. I don't want to try and add as I don't want to screw up. I know this is rude, but could someone add more? I'd be glad to help (I have a grasp on the plot) with it.

If you're going to warn about spoilers, plus mention Morganna and her role in things(considering that isn't revealed till QUITE late in the series), why is there no mention of either the subplot about Tsukasa's RL gender, or even that he is in fact a she? Nezu Chiza 15:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

And yes I have experimented in the sandbox, but I want to be careful.

---

I had an urge to throw in how I felt about this series, by the end I had very few answers and a ridiculous number of questions, and several hours of my life were gone watching the main character whine or scream about this or that.

If positive aspects to this show could be highlighted, or found in general. It´d be nice to be reminded of them.

This series are the love or hate kind. I loved them because of the slow pace and the sad atmosphere surrounding the main character, which is quite lost. Some hate it because of the lack of action; it's all talk. Or because of the lack of some answers, which I think fits the storyline very well. Sometimes one isn't supposed to know everything. Rvalles 00:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

-- Guess what? Story length tripled, character section added, and more stuff coming. Welcome all =).Darkshikari

---

In the characters section, about Harold - "Because he was disappointed in himself for failing as a father in real life, he created Aura, an AI, to serve as his "daughter" in The World"
I didn't see anything in the series about that. My impression was, Aura was to represent a daughter between himself and Emma Wielant, who died before he had a serious romantic relationship with. It didn't seem to me that he failed as a father, just that he never was a father, biologically speaking. Was there something I missed in the show?
MagusDrumheller 23:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably a misunderstanding, Harold expresses to be very sorry for his failing, failing to raise Aura because of Morgana's rebelion, that is.Requiem the 18^th_(email)

---

I was wondering about what was wrong with what I added: "(It was also hinted that Tsukasa was a girl in the first episode. By comparing the first and last scenes, Tsukasa and the comatose girl look very similar and have the same position)" I'm not sure if it is a factoid, but it is verifiable as far as I can tell. I mean, it seems about the same as "It is implied from certain scenes in the TV show that Tsukasa had an emotionally unstable father and deceased mother and was ostracized by her peers as a child" in terms of how easy it is to verify. Ariaandkia 11:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Title screen

I replaced the old title screen image with one that was easier to see when thumbnailed. The Trashman 23:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Legend of the Twilight

Please do not change this title. This is the official English title used by Tokyopop and Bandai for the releases in the States. I checked on the Amazon.co.uk site to see if they used "Bracelet" in the title, and while I can find it listed three times with "Bracelet" in the title, I can't find any covers that actually have the title using "Bracelet." --nihon 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I put the Weasel Words template up. Listen to this: "The storyline is quite slow and layered—the viewer is quite often fed false information and red herrings, making it quite hard to figure out what is going on until it is finally revealed towards the end of the series. Character development is also extremely critical to the series; there are few flat characters, and each of the important characters goes through great change through the story." There are a lot of opinions in there. Slow an layered? Some might think so, but some may not. Quite hard to figure out what's going on? Some watchers may find it slightly easier. Character devolopment may be critical to the series, but that can be said better to make is sound less biased. Also, not everyone may find the "flat characters" flat. There is a lot of bias like this throughout the article, and someone needs to go through and check it. M2K e 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to elicidate (some spoilers cannot be avoided here):

• slow: It takes a long time as in number of episodes to discover why Tsubasa cannot log out and who truly is behind the player Tsubasa. Same goes for a lot of others such as Maha. After all the plot has to last for 26+ episodes.
• layered: There is the World of the game and there is the real world outside. Not all characters exist in both.
• what is going on: Well, was it really obvious who/what was behind Tsubasa?
• character devolopment: This is critical for Bear taking responsibility for Tsubasa's real life character in the end, as well as how alliances form throughout the story

While I did not write the article being critisised I feel the autor has a sound and objective basis for the claims. Words might be rephrased to make it clearer but that will necessarily spoil far more of the twists than required for an overall decription of the story. --13:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing; the article doesn't specify which of the characters are flat; in fact the exact words were few characters - not a few characters - which may be as "few" as two. Under those conditions, I would believe it is quite plausible for most if not all viewers to find at least one or two characters which they found insipid or one-dimensional. Also, in general the comments on character development are not negative, although I can understand how you would see it that way. It's quite easy to fix; I intend to do so... Bluemonq 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit by User:Zero

On looking at this article, this depicted a very, complete and consise character section, and the descriptions were competent for the inclusion as they are currently. I de-linked it to normal text, to make it clear that the characters didn't have articles and didin't meet the nobility outlined in WP:FICT (probably the best choice I could have made) and with the new Suburu fitted in to fill up the end of the page. It was really a matter of common sense; I found the charcter list folows policy as it is , was easier to read and thought that others having similar problems of referencing might also appreciate it. I also took the libery of making the template link directly to the character section in this article for furthur accessibility.-Zero^Talk 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Why is this being categorized as Yuri? 65.118.187.102 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the end we find out that two characters that appear to be romantically involved are both female. This doesn't really seem like a major theme though, so I'll remove the category. -- Ned Scott 23:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Episodes 23 and 24 are all about Tsukasa realizing that he was a in fact a "she", and how this would affect his relationship with Subaru, and in episode 26 Morgana trys to use this in order to make Tsukasa fall in despair. Also Tsukasa managed to wake Aura up when he said there's a person he wanted to meet IRL (Subaru). Thus, it really is a major theme Kazu-kun 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Their relationship is an important theme but not the whole girl on girl thing. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Even still, I'd only say that it's a major theme of those 2 episodes, not of the entire series.--Anaraug 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This series is not even remotely yuri. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't get why people keep insisting the series is Yuri. The problem with Tsukasa and Subaru is that it was mostly a "puppy love" thing. I doubt Tsukasa ever had any remotely sexual thoughts about Subaru, and Subaru genuinely believed Tsukasa was a guy. (That plus her constant flirting with Krim, serious or not, suggests she definitely likes guys.) Tsukasa's admisson of the truth to Subaru wreaked to high heaven of "Can we still be friends?" Yes, Tsukasa was embarassed. Wouldn't anyone here be, especially if they were very close to the person in question? Thankfully, in this case, the friendship lived on, and I think *that* is the theme people are confusing for Yuri.76.18.95.22 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And your poit is...? .hack//ZERO novel states they become a couple after SIGN. It's fine if you don't like that, but I see no point in discussing it further. About the article, the yuri theme is mentioned because a good article is supposed to address all the possible perspectives present in the series (from a neutral poit of view, of course, and the subject is presented that way in this article). This is not the same as to say the series is yuri, of course (which is the reason for it to not being categorized as such) but the elements are there, therefore the theme has to be addressed. Kazu-kun 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaochin

Kaochin is a very minor character in the anime, I feel that she shouldent be in the character section. I know that the confrontation between her and Subaru is certianly deep and meaningful to some people, but the same 'importance' could be said for minor characters like Balu or the guy who keeps asking Mimiru to party- anybody can make a paragraph for a minor character, but that doesnt mean its revelant to add them. Opinions? 70.132.201.55 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me Ageofe 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's place for A-20, Kaochin should have a place here as well. A-20 makes Mimiru to take a decision that change the flow of the series; Kaochin does the same with Subaru. The guy who keeps asking Mimiru to party doesn't affect any main character in any way, thus it's a totally different thing. Kazu-kun 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but A-20 appears in about three episodes, Kaochin appears in one (and for about 6 minutes at that). And, it could rightly be said that Kaochin is merely what causes Subaru to realize that her actions have consequences, since the climax of her decision had already been made with the disbanding of the Crimson Knights. She was doing soul-searching so to speak before that, Kaochin merely pushed it along. Looking at the A-20 section as well, I think greater emphasis than should be placed on how these minor characters effected SIGNs major characters if we keep them, to balance out the detail of what they look like. Ageofe 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Article introduction (number of episodes)

With your changes, the article was like this:

26-episode anime series (with one recap episode and three bonus episodes) produced by studio Bee Train and Bandai Visual, that makes up one of the four original storylines of the .hack franchise. Three additional episodes, Intermezzo, Unison, and .hack//GIFT.

Do you see where is your mistake? 26 ep + 1 recap and 3 bonus + 3 adicional episodes = 33 eps.(¿?) This obviously doesn't make sense (it's a cohesion problem)

Before your changes (and now,) the article was like this:

29-episode anime series, produced by studio Bee Train and Bandai Visual, that makes up one of the four original storylines of the .hack franchise. Twenty-six of these episodes were shown on television, and three additional episodes, Intermezzo, Unison, and .hack//GIFT

26 tv + 3 dvd specials = 29. Do you understand? This is correct, and doesn't need any modification! Kazu-kun 08:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

Please take a look at the second paragraph, and lines such as "character development is strong...a few are flat" for good examples. — Deckiller 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some wording. If it's not enough I will see what else I can do when I have more time. If anyone else has any idea, please let us know so we can improve the article. Kazu-kun 04:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good start; glad to see someone jump on the issue! — Deckiller 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

LOTB non-canon?

In the section on Silver Knight, the article calls LOTB "non-canon", but no other .hack article mentions that. Does anyone have a source saying that LOTB is non-canon? Or did whatever editor mean a specific non-canon episode or omake or something (I haven't watched that one yet)? -- Anaraug 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I belive what they are referring to is the anime,the anime LoTB is non cannon while the manga is cannon.

Re-arrangement

I made several changes on the article in order to improve its quality, using articles listed as "good articles" on WikiProject Anime and manga as basis. I made individual pages for main characters as they appear in several series and there's a lot of info about them (Crim, BT, and Ginkan individual articles are in progress), and cut some text from the main article: mostly speculations and also false information (like saying that the Phases collected emotional data to feed Aura. This comes from the non-canon Liminality easter-eggs and it's just not true, as Analysis states that the Phases didn't exist when Morganna still was doing her job with Aura). Episode list is also in progress. Kazu-kun 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never really considered separate character articles as something every anime article series should have. It really depends on a case-by-case basis, in line with WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but here we have main characters that make appearance in many series of the franchise, and are really important to the story in general (ie: Sora, who is really important even in .hack//G.U. eventhough he doesn't even appear in that game series). Info from other series can not be left out, as you well know all the series of .hack are part of a whole, unique story (ie: you can not explain Aura's role in SIGN without telling what she is, but that is explained in Liminality. And without Aura you can not tell anything about Tsukasa, and without Tsukasa you wouldn't have any series to begin with). Thus, this is exactly the case where we need individual articles ( according to WP:FICT) as all the information about them wouldn't fit in the main article. Also individual articles are needed for other series of the franchise where they have major roles, and I don't see any problem linking them from here as that allows us to clean up the main article as well. Kazu-kun 17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

.hack//SIGN → .hack//Sign

• MOS policy states that all capped trademarks are to be written in normal English fashion. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). The lowercased "hack" is fine because it is emulating computer language.
• Additionally, the official site writes it this way. Look at your browser's header while here.--SeizureDog 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been like this the last three years, why moving it now? Also if you want to do something, you could begin with something more productive, like a reception section, or a theme section... one the article is complete we can move it, but first, do help with the actual article please. Kazu-kun 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would we need to wait to move it? Policy concerning all capped titles used in anime and other Japanese titles has been discussed multiple times (e.g. at Naruto and Bleach). Consistancy in this standard needs to mantained. How long it's been at the old name is not a valid reason to keep it there. Unless you can cite some policy showing that it should be capped, I'm moving it back.--SeizureDog 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You say move this move that, but it's not only moving the article; only on this page the name apears multiple times, and there's also every .hack related article. If you want to move it so much then do it right; you should be willing to go through every .hack article (including this one itself) replacing the title every time it apears (as stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)). But, if you're jut gonna move this page and replace the title in the header, then it's better to do nothing; eventually I will move the article myself, and I will do it right. BTW, I was really serious when I said I coul use your help with the reception section (I'm waiting your answer)Kazu-kun 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said I wasn't willing? I plan on doing this, but it takes a bit of time (plus my internet keeps disconnecting). I'll have them all fixed up by the end of the week if I don't keep getting reverted like this.--SeizureDog 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as you do it right, it's ok by me. Ah, and I don't have your answer about the reception section yet!! Kazu-kun 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the reason I was moving the articles first was because if I "fixed" the links they would end up as redlinks. Anyways, I really know nothing about the .hack series; I only saw two episode of Roots. But here's some reviews to help with the reception: DVD review, Novel review. --SeizureDog 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style says to adhere to standard rules even if others are encouraged ("Bandai" rather than "BANDAI"), but not to invent new formats when only one is used. Aside from one webpage heading written by a PR middleman, "Sign" is an invented format, not used in any materials or press releases. For all we know it does stand for something. - Onmyounomichi 09:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So if no one has any objections, I'll move this page back. - Onmyounomichi 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't, because the title was decapped per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). That is, "Sign" instead of "SIGN".

However, it isn't "SIGN" vs. "Sign," it's ".hack//SIGN" vs. ".hack//Sign." You can't treat two parts of the whole trademark as two different cases. If the h in .hack//Sign can be lowercase due to stylistic judgment, then why can't the "Sign" be fully uppercase? I suggest that it be treated as if it were a CamelCase instead. Remember (or try to understand) that SIGN is only referenced without the ".hack//" prefix casually. Its official title is and always will be ".hack//SIGN;" otherwise this article might be moved to "Sign (.hack)," or some other Wikidiotic name.--OtakuD50 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The "h" in ".hack" can be lowercase because is not the first letter; the first letter is the "." which is meant to be pronounced and is therefore part of the title. Furthermore, ".hack" is emulating file syntax: dot-extension; and file extensions are commonly rendered entirely in lowercase. The manual of style take in account this kind of things.Kazu-kun 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The rule "but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used." doesn't apply, because "SIGN" is not considered standard english. "sign" is an actual english word and has to be capitalized as such ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment"). Again, "Sign" instead of "SIGN".Kazu-kun 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So should s-CRY-ed be moved to S-cry-ed? - Onmyounomichi 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

General Usage

As discussed on Talk:.NET_Framework#Title, both WP:NAME as well as WP:MOSPN says to disregard the convention and go with all caps when the general usage is almost always in caps. Since this is true for .hack//SIGN, it seems like we should move this back in accordance with the policy. Any objections? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:MOSTM, which doesn't say "general usage" but "standard English" (eg: MCI is regarded as standard english). The capitalization in .hack//SIGN is not really an standard, as the series is not that widely known. Not only that, but there's not rationale behind this capitalization either, as demonstrated by other titles of the franchise without this cap treatment (eg: .hack//Liminality). In this case I think the title has to remain decapped.Kazu-kun (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's standard enough that pretty much all the articles cited on this page use it, as well as Amazon.com and pretty much anything that deal with it. The "lack of rationale" reason seems like a wild assumption. If you can provide an interview or some source explaining the naming and demonstratively showing that it isn't an acronym or capitalized for a reason, though, I'll accept that.I'll get back to you about the trademark thing. All I'm trying to do is figure out what exactly the policy means and how to consistently implement it... - Onmyounomichi (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's still not standard. Official spellings are used most of the time everywhere, but that's not enough reason to have them that way on wikipedia. For example Unix... the official spelling is UNIX, and it's widely known that way, yet here on wiki it has to be decapped. Other anime titles which are officially spelled in all caps are also decapped. Why this article should be any different.Kazu-kun (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think the anime articles and the rest of the world should follow the same conventions. Do you agree then that .NET Framework should be changed then? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that MÄR, BECK, Jinki:EXTEND, and FLAG (anime) should be moved. About .NET Framework... I'm not familiarized with that article (or the topic it deals with) at all; you should discuss it with the editors working there. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

.NET is exactly the same. It's a product name based on an English word. It should follow the same rule as SIGN, whichever that may be. According to the .NET talk page:

According to WP:MOSTM, "don't invent new formats". .NET Framework IS the standard usage in English. Not .Net framework. (.net framework is not a standard english word. the "word" comes from the trademark). --soum ^talk 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

...doesn't this also apply to .hack//SIGN? Or is it wrong? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I see they're different cases. In fact ".NET" is comparable to ".hack". Both are emulating file syntax (dot-extension); and file extensions are commonly rendered entirely in lowercase or entirely in capital letters. Therefore the spelling ".Net" would be against the "don't invent new formats" premise from WP:MOSTM. The "SIGN", however, has to remain decapped.Kazu-kun (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement is full of assumptions. We don't know if they're emulating extensions or tlds or what. If that *is* the case for .hack, though, then it's very possible that "SIGN" was also meant to emulate computer formatting. Liminality doesn't do it, but you get variation like that in computer formatting a lot. All-caps is more the rule than the exception in the .hack's though, anyway. Liminality is the "odd one out". How is "Sign" not inventing a new format? If they mentioned "Sign" (normal spelling) in the show I could agree with you, but like .NET we really have no information on the actual background of the naming and, aside from on Wikipedia, it's in widest (and pretty much exclusive) usage as "SIGN." Do you disagree with that? If you don't we really have nothing to argue about... - Onmyounomichi (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about .hack//SIGN being the most common spelling in other articles, but it's the same with every title: official spellings are always the most common spelling in use. If this was reason enough for titles to not be decapped then the guidelines would be meaningless. But that is not the case. The norm is for every title to be decapped; and the exceptions to that norm are to be minimal: only titles which are widely known in English (ie: Harry Potter), because it's not about "common usage" but "standard in English". An anime series would never fit in that category, and even less anime series like .hack//SIGN, which are not targeted to mainstream audience. Drago Ball or maybe Sailor Moon... those might be considered widely known (in English) anime series, but not .hack//SIGN, and not the majority of anime series either. That's my take on the guideline, and if you're not satisfied with it, feel free to ask someone else's opinion.Kazu-kun (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So how does this explain why ".hack" is completely lowercase? Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized. I do not believe the "." counts, as this is never mentioned in the MOS, and .hack itself isn't much more known than SIGN. Also, then, since .NET also isn't common English, shouldn't it also be decapped? Is the rule about "emulating technology terms" anywhere in the MOS? I've already asked around, and the interpretation consensus on the .NET page is that "the common usage" is the common usage when it's used. No one's gotten back to me on the MOS talk page. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The guideline says "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced". The "." is pronounced (you can find references for this), therefore is not decorative... since the "." is the first character instead of the "h", having the "h" decapped is not a violation of standard English text formatting.Kazu-kun (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually having difficulty finding a style guide (either Wikipedia or English grammar) that describes how to capitalize a word beginning with "." - Onmyounomichi (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, the full guideline says Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love"). Shouldn't this article be Dot Hack Sign then? In any case the // is purely for decoration, and the "dot" substitution is specifically covered by that. Heck, it's even written out "dot" in some instances of the logo. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"♥ = love" is not actual pronunciation. On the other hand ". = dot" is the real thing. So they're different cases. Thus, I think that changing "." for "dot" would be against the "don't invent new formats" premise: one's thing is to change capitalization, but changing the actual words... that's making up a new title. In any case ".hack//" is common to all the products of the franchise, which encompasses video games, anime, manga, novels, etc; and a lot of that has been licensed in English. So I believe that in this case the ".hack//" part is known enough to be considered English standard. Again, this is my take, and if you don't like it, feel free to go ask elsewhere.Kazu-kun (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Should we move .hack to .hack// then, if that's the widely known name? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It is clear I wasn't talking about the name of the franchise, but about an element that is common to all its products' titles. And BTW, did you forget about BECK, Jinki:EXTEND, and FLAG (anime) already? I thought you wanted to move those too, and even though nobody has opposed, you still haven't touched any of them.Kazu-kun (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So why does the "//" get special treatment? Is this anywhere in the guidelines? Well, MAR is an acronym apparently, and since I'm still not clear with how the policy is supposed to be interpreted, with the .NET people saying one thing and you saying something different, I haven't made the moves. I was under the impression that this isn't democratic, it's decided on based on the rules set forth in the MOS, so I want to understand them before I actually go around changing anything else, regardless of local support for the idea. It would be helpful if the MOSTM talk page was remotely active... - Onmyounomichi (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, MOS is guideline, not policy, meaning it's possible to reach compromise as how a title has to be spelled. Therefore I think .hack//Sign is enough a compromise between standard English text formatting and the identity of the title itself. An example of this kind of compromise could be what happened in Talk:XxxHolic#Requested_move. After that discussion, the article which was named ×××HOLiC was moved to xxxHolic - they took in account that "xxx" (which are not pronounced) denote a variable, even though there's not reference for such a meaning; this compromise could be made because MOS is meant to be what it is: a guideline. Kazu-kun (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the tag at the top says there's wiggle room. Shouldn't .hack//SIGN count as the "occasional exception" then? Like the recent post on the .NET page said, "official" doesn't matter, but the fact that "Sign" only appears a couple of times ever in publication (I can really only think of one place on the U.S. webpage, with even third parties printing SIGN) makes it seem like a sort of anomalous format. Like the poster, between the two conflicting guidelines here I'd consider "don't invent new formats" to be more important, as I believe the article should try to use a name readers have seen or will see somewhere. Does this not make any sense? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think .hack//Sign is a good compromise between standard English text formatting and the identity of the title. That itself is IMO enough of an exception. Kazu-kun (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was looking for more opinions like you suggested, and this is what some people said about ".NET", which pretty much covers all the naming territory ".hack//SIGN" does. The general consensus is that no compromise really needs to be made, since changing it to a name not usually used in English to refer to the product doesn't make sense or agree with the "don't invent" clause in the TM policy. I don't agree with all the logic though, so I'm continuing the discussion. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Madlax, which is a GA, makes use of character pictures in the same way they are used here (pictures on the main article as well as in the list of characters, which in this article case whould be in each characters' own article). If wikipedia editors who rated Madlax as a GA don't have a problem with it, I think you shouldn't either. Evangelion also features character pictures in its list of characters as well as in each characters' own article.

Also the characters listed in this article are not just .hack//Sign charactes, they belong to Project .hack and can be accessed from every .hack related article as they appear in several media of the franchise (This also means there's to much information about each character that can no be left out. An issue that has already been discussed here). Thus, characters' articles and this .hack//Sign article are to be treated separately, and have to stand own their on in accordance with WP:FICT. Kazu-kun 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

I must admit this article has gotten really better over the past few months. It may be a good time to start thinking about nominating it for GA... Well, my actual point is that an friend of mine found this interview on AnimeOnDVD.com and said that it mainly concerns SIGN. Since I'm not primarily interested in this area of Bee Train's repertoire, I thought that it'd be better if someone of the editors here checked it out and saw what useful information could be extracted out of it. :) --Koveras ^☭ 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The interview is great. It has some critical comments by Mashimo about the production of the series, so it will be really helpful. Thanks a lot! And yeah, I was already thinking about the GA nomination, but first I need to put together a "reception". Maybe this weekend I will have time to do it.Kazu-kun 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 09:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I would like to comment that the article looks ready for some butchering at the FAC (meaning that it stands a chance to withstand it long enough), however, I'm a bit concerned with the cultural references section. It is properly sourced and well-written but I can't really see its relevance for the rest of the article. ^^ Also, the list in "Publications" is gonna draw some attention from the editors. It shouldn't be too difficult to convert it into prose? Lastly, I was worried about the length of the character section but since the lead mentions early that the series is character driven, it should be OK. However, this is my personal opinion and it'll have little to no effect on the amount of butchering (they call it "tidying up") the article is gonna be subjected to if you nominate it for FAC. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, I know the article needs some work here and there, and maybe a thorough copyediting too, before being really ready for FAC. The recent promotion of Madlax is encouraging (BTW, congratulations) so I a want the article to be up to the challenge before nominating it.

I also was concerned about the cultural references' notability, but I'm still unsure of what to do. Converting "Publications" into prose is a really good idea (I'll work on that tonight). I also want to re-write "Themes", because right now is more of a mix between themes and plot element than just themes. Anyway, thanks fo the advices, and once again, congratulations.Kazu-kun 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing I learned from my ordeal (thanks for congratulating me, btw ^^) was that no matter how much you work one the article, it'll never be up to challenge. %) Not unless you have, like, 10 successful FACs on your record... On the cultural refs: I'd say, consider the section a sophisticated trivia section and deal with it accordingly (that is, salvage what you can and delete it). It'll also shorten the article a bit (46 kB right now, I know it's technical evaluation but still). Lastly, I don't consider rewriting "Themes" a critical issue but seeing how many objections were raised to the Themes of Madlax, the less points to pick on it has, the better. :) PS: Oh, and you've got some credit for Madlax's improvement, too, so... congratulations. ;-P --Koveras ^☭ 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I could contribute at least a bit with the promotion.

About the cultural refs. If I could find some imput about Kazunori Ito's influences and inspirations I would be able to write a proper "Writing" section, which would give me context to summarize the references into it (like in "Writing" of Lain). That was my initial idea, but I couldn't find anything, no even an interview with the guy. In any case, if I can't come up with a better solution, I will take on your suggestion.

Of course I know it'll never be totally up to the challenge, but there's still some work I can do to improve it. Anyway, thanks again.Kazu-kun 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've got another interview, this time it's even more reliable (though slightly less informative, I'm afraid). It's one of the extras on .hack//Liminality Vol 2: In the Case of Yuki Aihara DVD, you can watch it on YT if you don't possess the disc. :) Hope there's something remotely useful in it. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Candidacy

The article is too long. Nominate for peer review. GreenJoe 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We decided to let it remain listed for now and someone will review the article.--DorisHノート 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is 46kb long, and there are GA rated articles that long (ie: Madlax). Furthermore, Lain and Excel Saga, which are rated as FA, are around 40, so I don't really see how this is an issue.Kazu-kun 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

dot hack...

I now the series is supposed to be pronounced as "dot hack...". The "dot" inside the dot in the DVD covers hints that much. Nevertheless, in order to add this statement to the article we need more than just a hint on the covers; in this case I think we need the word of the creators themself as refence. So, until I find some input by the creators on this subject, it's better no to include it on the article. Kazu-kun 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer-Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), grey (B) (American: gray), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): doesn't, doesn't, wasn't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Full dates have been linked, spelling consistency and contractions have been fixed. There are not free use .hack//Sign images available, but other GA and FA anime articles use DVD covers on the top right corner, so it shouldn't be any problem. I will see what I can do about the thorough copyediting, though I think the article already meets the GA criteria. Kazu-kun 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

opinions

Does this page really need someone's opinion on Tsukasa and Subaru being lesbians? -E

Yes, because the elements are present and need to be explained, and none better than Erica Friedman to do so. She is the president of ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri. In other words she is pretty much an expert on the subject, hence her input is considered critical.

Also, from ALC site: "She (Friedman) has lectured at dozens of conventions and presented films at several film festivals, notably the San Francisco Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. She has participated in an academic lecture series on women and gender roles in anime at MIT and University of Illinois, and written about yuri and shoujoai for several websites and Animerica magazine."

So, as you can see, Friedman is qualified to be cited on the article, at least as qualified as other sources used on the article, like Mike Toole from Anime Jump, or Holly Ellinwood of Anime Active. Kazu-kun 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Article is very well written and well referenced. The article is a bit long, so maybe some content (publications, characters) could be moved to separate articles (characters already is, but maybe something bette could be done). But I see nothing in this article that blatantly violates the GA criteria. Good work! Dr. Cash 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.^^ Kazu-kun 04:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FA push

This article has FA potential. Since this is probably my favorite anime series of all time (the Tsukasa/Subaru relationship is the best in anime history, and the cast is outstanding), I'd be willing to lend a hand down the road. — Deckiller 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated, I'll support (both by voting and by contributing) any nomination of a Bee Train-related article. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 09:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Any contribution is more than welcome, of course! For my part, I'm re-writing "Themes", for reasons stated above, and I'm also considering what to do with "Cultural references". Any idea with the latter would be really helpful.

Also, I'm looking for someone who can read Japanese; I have this review with Yuki Kajiura which I'm sure will be quite useful. If any of you knows of someone who can help in that department, I would really appreciate it.Kazu-kun 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not really well versed in the practices of the Anime WikiProject, so I'll just be here as a peer reviewer and/or copy-editor. — Deckiller 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Kazu-kun, it's been three months, how does it look? --Koveras ^☭ 09:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been another four months. :) --Koveras ^☭ 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kajiura mention

Hi, I'm a bit late with this but I'd like to comment about "Kajiura in the lead". ^^ In fact, adding Kajiura to the lead was one of the first things suggested to me after Madlax FAC nomination, verbatim: "I don't think that I was the only person who watched the show mainly under the assurance of at least having awesome music." While there is certainly much more to both shows than just the music, it does add just as much appeal to SIGN as Sadamoto's designs and Ito's story IMO. :) --Koveras ^☭ 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember having removed what you added about Kajiura in the lead; it wasn't because I thought it shouldn't be there, but because it didn't work well with the wording. Give me some time and I'll try to make it work.Kazu-kun 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I seen the first episodes of the series...

And I think they introduce an excuse to addiction to MMPORGS. This is a serious theme and should be putted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.153.25 (talk)

Made into golf balls? But seriously, I don't think the first episodes really show an excuse for addiction. Parts of the series clearly show long periods of time during which the non-trapped characters are not online, not unwillingly. I don't think that really 'excuses' any kind of addiction to MMOs, and mention of addiction to MMOs belongs more on pages like WoW. Nique talk 21:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)