Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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
October 25, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 11, 2023.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ian F Whitman, Ikhan-rollins. Peer reviewers: Imartins34, Lkhk32, Zxmaria, Starlyia, Brandon Shortrede.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This transport plane obviously inspired the large aircraft in the film (one of them is pictured at the top of the poster). I can't provide a citation for that, but Miyazaki is a noted aviation nut and frequently gives cameos to unusual aircraft. I'm going to add this observation to the article, in the hope that the similarity will be obvious enough to be uncontroversial and not count as OR.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted as this is blatant original research. This is entirely based on our personal observation and analyst and is not verified through a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 12:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review(s)[edit]

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus on primary meaning of title.

I guess a month is long enough to let a debate rage on. :)

Summing up the opposing positions:

  • The primary rationale for renaming is based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the fact that information about the film is sought by Wikipedia users far more often than information about the manga.
  • The primary rationale against renaming is the fact that the manga came first, and the film is based on that (in spite of some confusion regarding the cause and effect relationship between the manga and the film). Also, the manga enjoys great popularity in its own right.

There does not appear to be an accepted primary meaning of "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind"; therefore it does no harm to impose an extra click on users who are shown the disambiguation page as their search result. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)Nausicaä of the Valley of the WindRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Didn't realize this was so "controversial". I'm proposing that this article move to the non-parenthetical spot and that the current dab page is unnecessary since it only links 3 articles, one of which (the Nausicaa character page) should be extensively linked throughout both of the other articles. Even though the manga came first, I believe the film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, based on usage statistics (film, manga). Since they're both currently parenthetically dabbed, it's clear that most readers arriving at the present dab page click through to the film, by a very large margin. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I suppose I should probably thank you for at least bothering to discuss it this time. However, as you will see from the archives, we've discussed this before. The manga not only came first but provided the material for the film. The film has attracted more attention in the last decade due to a re-release, so recentism is almost certainly the cause of the statistical difference you've cited, but the fact remains that the manga is one of the most popular ever released. Also I'm not entirely sure stats from Wikipedia are the correct measure of notability (how many copies of the film have been sold against copies of the manga?). On a separate point: a hat-note linking to the other articles would stretch over one line so a disambiguation page is the correct solution, as per WP:TWODABS (Note: since the disambiguation page has just been created we've only just started populating it). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation only at this time: The only "move" discussion is an addendum of a Merge proposal that was proposed in October 2008. While the "merge" had a fairly good discussion, the "move" didn't. Revisiting an old consensus is acceptable, revisiting a non-consensus (no disscusion, no indication that consensus was actually expressed) even more so. - J Greb (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the point is that the proposer, who has made no contribution to any of these pages, moved the articles without any consultation when it was clear that there were differences of opinion. This has caused work for other editors (and an administrator) to restore the stable version. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The English re-release is over 6 years old so I don't think recentism from that is an issue. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the hat-note point since the hat-note, as it exists now ("This article is about the film. For the manga it was based on, see Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga).") is clearly less than one line and provides ample dab. What else could you populate the current dab page with anyway? At any rate, I think it's dangerous to suggest that only people who have made contributions to a page in the past should have a say in its future. I merely looked at the statistics and saw what I thought was a huge and non-controversial disparity in click-through. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Recentism or popularity? The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King (the book) got 16440 hits in August, the film got 92000. What does that tell us? Since you're taking a purely statistical view perhaps you could propose to switch those articles? Do you think that would wash? A neutral party might think so, but most people would argue the original should take precedence. (I appreciate that in that case the producers have inadvertently provided a naming solution so it's not an issue, but it does serve to illustrate a point.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The film was quite recently rereleased on Blu-ray format, so the "over 6 years old" is very inaccurate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, didn't realize that. However, looking further back in the stats, it looks like the recent Blu-ray release (in March 2011) hasn't had much of an impact on pageview stats (film, manga in Dec 2010, for example). Axem Titanium (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's rather irritating that you're using original research to start with, but since we've gone down that road: Nausicaa and various other Studio Ghiblo DVDs were mass produced and periodically go on sale or special offer, skewing the DVD sale statistics for that month (NB apparently the aggregate total sales for the film are 5% of the sales for the manga in Japan alone). It should not come as a surprise that this contributes to the continued interest in the film. Recentism is definitely an issue here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you might have your policies confused. WP:OR refers to article content, not disambiguation. Notice how often people point to Google searches as an indication of primary-ness. Besides, it's not as if the Nausicaa manga volumes are out of print. It stands to reason that Viz's manga reprint (which was released in 2004, less than one year before the English re-dub) has had multiple printings and sales/special offers in the past 7 years. At any case, if the manga had such massive sales, why are people looking at the film article? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No I don't have them confused. You're using internet statistics to decide changes to an article, not verifiable facts about notability. The reason we have WP:OR is because we consider certain techniques to be unreliable. As for sales vs page views - your guess is as good as mine - but I've pointed out a few reasons already. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't believe WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says anything about not being allowed to use internet statistics to determine primacy. I believe the onus is on you to prove that the statistics are wrong, or should be discounted. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've already pointed out several examples of where the primary article is the original work or a disambiguation page, not the more popular (according to Wikipedia stats) film of the same name. And that was using a random selection from the DVDs on my shelf rather than a methodical survey. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Personally, I thought the move was reasonable, and bold, action. There was noting to indicate that it would be controversial. The only reason, I and an admin had to step in was because you improperly cut and paste the pages around after the initial move. And I don't understand what contributing to the articles in the past have to do with invalidating a reasonable page move. —Farix (t | c) 11:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The admin had to step in because it was impossible to revert the initial move. Contributing to articles tells us that the editor knows about the topic and understands the issues. A non-contributor who makes a sudden unannounced bold change might encourage other editors to think that they're acting on the basis of statistics or something... Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The admin had to step in because of your cut and past move. And contributing to an article is not required to take reasonable bold actions. The fact that you even bring it up shows that you are attempting to use it to delegitimize the page move. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that users on the English Wikipedia are likely look for when they search "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" is the film. While the manga may have been popular in Japan, its English release went without much noticed. And it is the latter we much use to judge which article is the primary topic. The whole disambiguation thing is such a non-issue. You only need to disambiguation between two articles, the manga and the film. I don't know why the character was included as that is not the name she goes by. —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and use hatnotes. Interestingly, according to the article, "Miyazaki only wrote the manga because Studio Ghibli film producer Toshio Suzuki was unable to get funding for a film that was not based on a manga". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support making the film the primary topic since the page view statistics show that it is more likely to be sought out by readers. The guidelines do say to consider educational value, but a search engine test of the manga's significance does not show that it is educationally valuable (especially more so than the film). Compare to The Day the Earth Stood Still and its remake The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film). The remake pales in comparison to the original film, which has a major legacy. When it comes to source materials and their adaptations, identifying primary topics and secondary topics is dependent on the importance of the source material. Sometimes there is famous source material that belongs in the primary topic slot no matter what (e.g., War and Peace), and sometimes there is obscure source material for which the film adaptation is more famous or popular (e.g., Road to Perdition (comics) and Road to Perdition). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either way. If consensus is to move, and in order to make sure the move is done correctly, I'll be happy to do it to make sure pages are moved in the correct order to avoid any problems. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current popular English release from Disney clearly deemphasizes the longer title, by this cover image from Amazon.com: [1] . So either the film is called "Nausicaä" or Nausicaa (the spelling used by Amazon.com does not include the accent [2]) or "Nausicaä (film)" or Nausicaa (film) . I think this is primary use over the historical usage, so it should occupy "Nausicaä" or Nausicaa. 65.94.77.134 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I notice that there is a videogames section that are based on manga and film, so perhaps instead Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind should become the franchise article, talking about the film, the manga, and the videogames. The videogames and other derivative material would be split off onto it. 65.94.77.134 (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a little hard to measure a publisher's intent regarding emphasis or de-emphasis, especially since the full title is clearly there. At any rate, the question of whether or not it should be moved to Nausicaa is separate from this one and should be discussed separately once this requested move finishes. What is your opinion on this particular move? With regards to a franchise article, I think that's a little premature. Miyazaki has never talked seriously about a sequel and, as for the video games you mentioned, they don't have articles for themselves and Miyazaki doesn't like them. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    65.94.77.134, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says to consider educational value when identifying topics as primary or secondary. Considering that Nausicaa is a character in a classic work, I think that is educationally valuable to be the primary topic. I also agree with Axem that it is hard to measure a publisher's intent. After all, the title is a mouthful, so the way it is marketed makes sense. It does not mean the title was actually shortened. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Given that this film is the primary topic, it should be moved on the basis of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since the film is used more frequently and has a major legacy than the manga which is limited in terms of it's English release. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The film is a legacy of the manga... Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The film is more popular than the manga, so for the manga to be the primary topic, its educational value over the film needs to be shown. Coming first is not necessarily enough for this set of topics, not compared to the classics and all their popular adaptations. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I think this statement is patently false [referring to Wiki-Ed]. "According to the Birth of Studio Ghibli featurette, Miyazaki only wrote the manga because Studio Ghibli film producer Toshio Suzuki was unable to get funding for a film that was not based on a manga." The manga is a consequence of the (future) film, but which happened to come out first. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Selective quoting eh. What else does the article say? That he only wrote it on condition it would never be made into a film? And I like this non sequitur "the manga is a consequence of the (future) film" What?! Lol. The film came afterwards and its story is based (loosely and partially) upon that of the manga, not the other way around. Educationally the manga is about environmental themes and people; the film is about fighting and aircraft (i.e. not educational at all). I think my initial concern about editors with no knowledge of the subject trying to make changes is more than justified. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you think the film has no environmentalist themes then? Are you sure? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wiki-Ed, that is not what educational value means. It means whether or not the topic is significant in academics. For example, while Avatar is an enormously successful film, the title has its roots in the Hindu term avatar. A more applicable example here is the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still and its 2008 remake. The original film has a legacy in film studies, especially as a seminal work of science fiction. The remake pales in comparison, even though it was the more popular article when both films were disambiguated. So in this case, there needs to be evidence of the manga being more studied than the film, since the film is more popular than the manga. It is not about evaluating the in-universe events at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I must have missed that definition of "educational", possibly because it's not linked on the policy page. Addressing your argument directly: the literature courses that have tackled this subject (e.g. [3]) appear to have studied both. Since the manga is significantly longer than the film one would imagine that it provided the students with more source material than the film. And, Axem, I am 100% sure that the manga contains more environmental and philosophical themes than the film. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Obvious strawman is obvious. "I am 100% sure that the manga contains more environmental and philosophical themes than the film" is very clearly not answering the same question as "So you think the film has no environmentalist themes then?" And selective quoting eh? They read the first volume of the manga for the class. Any further guesses as to how much each student read of the manga is idle speculation or the WP:OR that you are so afraid of. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not answering your question, but that was a strawman in itself. The point is that while there are nascent environmental themes in the film they are incidental to the plot which culminates in a battle and Nausicaa being resurrected. It barely addresses why there was a battle at all, let alone the solution to the problems affecting the people. In the manga the environmental themes are key to the plot. Anyway, apparently this is irrelevant. I'm still waiting for a link to the policy page explaining what "educational" is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Wiki-Ed. --Crazy runner (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you respond to criticisms of Wiki-Ed's position then? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. based off the manga considering that it was released before production of the film.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primacy is determined by common usage, not by release order. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it isn't. See my Lord of the Rings example above or The War of the Worlds [4][5] or I Am Legend, [6][7] or, most appropriately, Howl's Moving Castle [8][9]. Which article has primacy? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like how none of those examples are comparable cases. Erik has repeatedly used War of the Worlds as an example of where educational value trumps strict popularity. I Am Legend is a dab page so none of them is designated as primary at all. Howl's Moving Castle is between a parenthetically dabbed page and a non-parenthetically dabbed page so you can't compare them to this case. At any rate, WP:OSE. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who is Erik and where are his repeated arguments in favour of War of the Worlds? Does this in some way undermine the argument here? Yes, I am a Legend is indeed a dab page - that's what I am proposing we do here - but it is still less popular than one of the article it links to. I am not clear what you're trying to say in relation to Howl's Moving Castle. Could you translate that into English? My point is that if I type in the name I get the book, not the film of the same name. In any case, as I said above, I just picked a few DVDs/books off my shelf at random; if I had carried out a methodical survey I'm sure it would go further to disprove your blanket assertion about primacy. And quoting OSE as an excuse does not help - perhaps you should test your interpretation of the policy on more populist articles instead exacerbating Wikipedia's problem with systemic bias here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • User:Erik? You've been talking to him during this discussion? Sound familiar? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that exceptions may occur when educational value is considered. War of the Worlds is a case where educational value trumps popularity. However, as the guideline states "A topic is primary for a term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". This case is a textbook definition of primacy as determined by common usage. When people type into the search box "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind", they are looking for the film at least seven times more often than the manga, and the guideline unambiguously states that that would constitute primacy. Can you refute that? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • So User:Erik determines policy? No. However, if he has made a cogent argument on a related case it would be useful to read it in order to see if it aids an understanding of the subjective term "educational". There are no "textbook" cases - discussions on primacy are decided on a case-by-case basis. Comparison to similar cases may aid discussion, hence my provision of examples showing your assertion to be false, but simple reliance on statistics is not sufficient, which is what the policy page means when it refers to them as "tools that may help". Using a bit of common sense we should never give a derivative bowdlerised fragment of an original piece of fiction the main name space. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to educate, not to provide a respository of information on recent film releases. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • What? No, of course he doesn't determine policy, but you don't think he has made a cogent argument, then respond to his point above, timestamped 13:32, 6 September 2011. I thought it was a very convincing illustration of what educational value should mean. Also, of course there are textbook cases. Otherwise there can be no general policy recommendation since there would be no default "textbook" response to fall back to. As it stands, I believe this is a textbook case where the more searched-for derivative work trumps its less searched-for source material. I believe my statement "Primacy is determined by common usage, not by release order" is an accurate summary of the Primacy guideline "A topic is primary for a term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box", and hence, not false. I believe it is common sense to follow the guideline in this case, and we can't both follow our common sense here. It also seems to me that you have some kind of grudge or prejudice against the film for some reason. You keep disparaging the film in subtle ways, like deriding it as "about fighting and aircraft (i.e. not educational at all)" and calling it a "derivative bowdlerised fragment". If this move discussion is your way of trying to prove your love for the manga, or some other WP:POINT, stop. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your statement summarises the general policy (which has generated 34 archive pages of discussion and proposals for improvement), but it does not take account of the exceptions. These exceptions (or common sense) have allowed editors to give primacy to the original work in various book/film article pairs or led to use of a disambiguation page despite the statistics you rely on. And for the record I don't have a grudge against the film - it's on my shelf alongside other Studio Ghibli films - but like many films which are based on books, I prefer the original because it tells the story more fully. Indeed I believe I only found out about the manga because it was mentioned on Wikipedia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Vegaswikian relisted the request to move, so we need additional input. I'm notifying WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a reality of Wikipedia policy that listing by legacy is essentially rejected. This is one of those things that sometimes seems a little bit off the mark to devotees of a subject area, where they rightly see the original work as the stable, natural default listing. However, that is not the method chosen for this encyclopedia. Instead, we have the more fluid situation where updates and revision are always in the air. Taking the long view, it doesn't matter much because both works link to each other. The main thing is to satisfy the most searches as effortlessly as possible -- stability be damned, legacy be damned. Oh, well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is partly true of books/films, although the examples I've provided do not support this, but I simply do not agree that the "main thing is to satisfy the most searches as effortlessly as possible". The purpose of the encyclopedia is to educate (first) and to do so in an accessible way (second). By hiding an original work behind a derivative we inhibit a reader's chance of learning and exacerbate systemic bias. A disambiguation page seems to be the solution here - it's only one extra click if they are actually hell-bent on reading the film article - but I don't see any appetite for a compromise solution from the other party. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This argument doesn't seem to hold water. First, your statement of Wikipedia's purpose is inaccurate. The stated purpose is to be an encyclopedia, where "the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us." So what you said isn't right. Now, I don't necessarily disagree that your idea of how to organize the article names is a good method. I tried to express that above. There are literally a limitless number of good ways to organize things here. Still, your way is not Wikipedia's way. You can't change that, I can't change that, that's not the policy. I think a good editor here follows policy instead of substituting their own. So, I respect your thinking that legacy works deserve pride of place or something, but I don't see how you're arguing as a good editor in that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well you've quoted from the Wikipedia article on Encyclopedia, but you don't appear to have read it. First point - the root of the word encyclopedia means "general education"; Second point - the quote supports what I've said and doesn't say anything about organising knowledge according to Google statistics. Wikipedia's way of organising articles does not rigorously follow reader statistics. There are all sorts of factors for determing primacy in different fields of knowledge including, for example, legacy in the case of cities. Thinking logically, as one IP tried to suggest above, if we follow a typical reader searching for the film they would type in "Nausicaa", which will send them to the minor character in the Odyssey. This article receives just over one sixth of the number of visitors received by the film. Therefore, using the logic applied by the pro-change party, we might assume that most visitors to this site want to read about the film rather than the Greek character. However, I see no argument here for "rationalising" the naming or disambiguating the term "Nausicaa". Why is this proposal not being followed through to its logical conclusion? Is it because the proposers actually do respect legacy terms? If so why are they arguing in favour of giving the derivative prime position? Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Encyclopedia is defined for Wikipedia purposes as I quoted. Your derivation is interesting, but it does not obtain here for obvious reasons. (Or do you accept that December is the tenth month since its name comes from deca (ten)?) (2) Is someone advocating organization by Google stats? No, not at all, but maybe you meant that page views count here. And yes, that is a part of it because that's the policy. That is how it works, that is how it is done, that is the Wikipedia method. Is it logical and all that? Well, an excellent case can be made on both sides. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either way, leaning towards move both seem to work fine, the disamb would be useful to some extend, serves as a short intro to those who do not know there are different versions. Yet the commonality of the film should be much higher than the manga(although I like the manga much more than the film), and per WP:NAME, commonality is a main issue when determining the title. My main concern will be on the user friendliness, the film page served quite well as a franchise page for quite a while, I don't really see any problem in that until this discussion. However, if Wiki-Ed and 65.94.77.134 suggested a franchise page, and the current disamb seemed to be working as well, I would suggest giving them time to build a franchise page, with sources, and see if it turn out well or not, before we make a final decision. Yet, if the page remains like the current one, I would support moving the film page back. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i do find it a bit odd to use the adaptation as the main franchise page, i do find it to be a big problem. To be honest, it won't be a big deal if it was moved, but making this the main franchise page is too much.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not odd. If a work of literature is adapted for the screen and that film article is the one people are most interested in (e.g. To Catch a Thief), then that is the primary topic. It's normal, usual and routine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. No it is not. I've already listed a number of comparable examples where the literary work is given primacy despite the film article getting more visits. There is no reason for this pair to be treated any differently. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP:OSE. The main point of OSE is that merely listing other examples is not a convincing argument. You need to prove why this case should be treated differently, when the default (according to policy) is to go with the move. Your goal right now is to find educational value in the manga that trumps the 7-fold increase in hits that the film gets. This educational exception is the policy-accepted reason why a lesser searched for item should take primacy over the more searched for one. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OSE is an essay; it is not policy and it is not a guideline. It is used in relation to article/creation deletion, not primacy. Many editors disagree with what it says: precedent and comparison are an entirely rational part of any debate - which OSE acknowledges - and form the basis of the law in many countries. Meanwhile there are over 30 pages of discussion about the wording of the guideline on disambiguation, including recent concern over the vague wording of "educational". So, instead of drawing from essays and poorly worded guidelines your goal now is to find a policy which supports your contention that precedents are inapplicable and common sense should not apply. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no common sense to your argument. Logic cannot help in a matter of faith and that is what you rely on, insofar as you believe that the legacy method is better then Wikipedia's policy. There is no reason to prefer either one, it's just the way it's done. We go on green and stop on red and there's no reason for that. It's conventional. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I alluded to this argument earlier. If two people (me and you) use their common sense and arrive at a different conclusion, then it's no longer common sense we're talking about. Instead, it's our personal intuition which is not common to both of us. Neither of our intuitions are wrong; there's just no common ground and you have to argue from other angles. See WP:NOCOMMON for a more detailed treatment. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No point to an argument about matters of faith. Reason is powerless. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic: Citing essays, ignoring what they say and then accusing other editors of being illogical. The argument for change is based on an interpretation of statistics (they never lie right?), mine is based on precedent and the interests of maintaining the encyclopedia as an authoritative educational resource. Rather than wikilawyering perhaps you should address the examples I have already cited where legacy and educational value has determined primacy. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you're addressing me, I'll point out a couple mistakes. First, I cited no essays. Second, I didn't say you're illogical. Rather, I said that reason (logic) has nothing to say about matters of faith. Just as there's no reason to go on red instead of green (it's conventional) there is no reason to prefer legacy naming to Wikipedia policy. Your preference is a matter of faith. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not the one referring to user essays to support their argument. Your argument suggests we follow convention. My argument - supported by the examples I've cited - is that the convention is to place the original work in the primary name space (or to use a disambiguation) in cases like this. It has nothing to do with "faith". Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misstatement of the policy. As you seem to acknowledge elsewhere, the primary topic is not established using your legacy method. So you are trying to establish this educational trump card but it isn't very strong and then you fall back to the common sense argument, which is finally a matter of faith. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is a misstatement of policy? (And please note, this is not a debate about policy, it is a discussion about a guideline.) The primary topic is established by discussion between editors; page view statistics is one factor that may be considered in that discussion. "Education" is another, but currently that term is poorly explained on the disambiguation guideline page. We're working to correct that even now. My previous post was about conventions - precedents used elsewhere in Wikipedia which we can use to judge how this discussion should go. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are mistaken and talking out of both sides. "Remember to base arguments on article title policy" it says in the first posting of this section in orange above. So if you're not basing your remarks on policy you are out of order. However, you seemed to understand we were talking about policy as recently as September 14, when you argued about what the policy means. To be clear, "convention" is not the policy of Wikipedia. The policy is that primary topics are determined by page views as the default. Your assertion that original works trump that is clearly erroneous. I think this would be a good time for you to follow the policy of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hierarchy. Essays are not guidelines and guidelines are not policy. Policy is mandatory; guidelines are open to discussion; essays are just opinions. This discussion is about the editing guideline (WP:D); not about the article title policy (which does not address this issue in sufficient detail). Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is about the article title policy and its application. Again, from above: "Remember to base arguments on article title policy". Guidelines are not to be ignored unless there's a strong reason to make an exception, and this case is nothing unusual. The only justification for your position as I see it is that you don't agree with Wikipedia's usage policy in this area. And I'll say again, there is no rational reason to prefer either method -- it is entirely conventional. You prefer that usage is trumped by legacy but that's not Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, article title policy does not cover diambiguation. This is covered by a separate guideline. That guideline does not reflect the consensus position across the site, which is that traffic statistics should not be used as the sole determining factor (there are many thousands of examples where editors have used common sense to place legacy before usage). The guideline is being updated to reflect this position and I would suggest we wait until that work is completed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't say that if you had an argument. I accept that as an admission that your position is not supportable. QED. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted an awful lot on here, but as yet have been unable to refute any argument I've made nor offered any constructive suggestion. If your last defence is that you don't acknowledge my argument even exists then perhaps you shouldn't be posting here at all. Of course, feel free to contribute to the discussion on the WP:D talk page where we're actually trying to solve the problem rather than perpetuate it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you don't understand something so easy. But no matter, you admitted you had no argument, not me, since if you had an argument now, you wouldn't ask us to wait for the guidelines to change. If the guidelines need to be changed for your view to succeed, your view must already fall short. That is what you say, not me. That is your view and I happen to agree with you. In that light, my success is complete, since our exchange allowed you to see that you could not honestly prevail without a change in the guidelines. Thanks for agreeing with me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which is worse; your reading proficiency or your logic. I would say "try again", but since your comments verge on trolling I don't propose to respond anyway. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you have so obviously undermined your own inadequate argument, what alternative is there but to launch a personal attack? It's obvious that when you said we should wait for the guidelines to change, you implied that your current argument is not good until the guidelines change. You can't explain that any other way, and that's why you didn't try. Thank you for the ad hominem fallacy in its pure form and sorry about your failed argument. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ring Cinema: that's not what i was referring. i really don't mind that this article would be named without disambiguation despite the original needing one. But treating the article as the main franchise page is completely different.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. That's a useful distinction. I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The manga is just as highly regarded and respected as the film. I personally believe that source material should always take priority in these hatnote disputes. The only exceptions I can see are when the source material is only notable because it was the source of the film, such as the To Catch a Thief example. --Remurmur (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide support showing that the manga is regarded highly enough to overcome a seven-fold disparity in pageviews? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I encourage the closing admin to avoid leaving a dab at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and instead make a decision for which should occupy the primary spot. The dab page only really navigates 3 pages, which is easily covered by hatnotes. There's no reason to put that extra layer between readers and content when a hatnote would do. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, the DAB should instead stay at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. This is exactly the situation in which a two-way DAB at the undisambiguated name is appropriate, see WP:2DAB and WP:TWODABS. There is no primary meaning, and there is no possibility of deciding one; Both the film and the manga are important in their own rights, and each has a high web presence. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA/FA push[edit]

All right. First let me say thanks to all those who have contributed to the article. There are still things we need to do to get it up to Good Article status and then, we can get it up to Featured ARticle status and have the article featured on the main page as a TFA on March 4, 2014 (the film's 30th anniversary). Here are examples of what we need to do:

  • Lead section - looks good, but may need a little expansion
  • Plot section - well within the 400-700 word guideline.
  • Production section - needs to be expanded upon.
  • Release section - needs to have box office figures and the English releases look good enough.
  • Reception section - can be expanded upon with critical reviews as well.
  • Citations - All of the dead citations should be replaced, but all of the references should be archived so we don't lose anymore. For example, WebCite is good tool for this. Just follow the instructions, it easy and takes only minutes. Then add the archived url and the archive date to the citation with the parameters |archiveurl= and |archivedate= .

All are welcome to assist with this process and if any of you have any further suggestions discuss them here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] on March 4, 2014 (the film's 30th anniversary)" this release date is used in the article info box and text as well but where does it come from? The "Birth of Ghibli" documentary listed as the source in the article gives March 11, 1984 (1984年3月11日公開 at approx. 10 minutes in) and the 11th of March matches with other publications - both pre-release (announcements on the early editions of Volume 1 of the manga, in promotional pamphlets and in/on Animage magazine.) as well as reference books (such as Archives of Studio Ghibli vol1) published later. Am I overlooking something -certainly possible- or is March 11, 1984 really the official theatrical release date of the film? 58.183.202.251 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already corrected the date error. It should be "March 11" and March 4 was actually a mistake, since it was actually released one week after March 4, 1984. To basically summarize it, the film was released on March 11, not March 4. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added bonus, that gives an additional week for the clean up of the article. Regarding box office numbers - can these come from Ghibli publications or do they need an alternate source? Otherwise the figures from the Birth of Ghibli in the same scene could be used. Since you work on other Ghibli related articles I have another question for you. Does this article -or the manga page for that matter- require a mention of Nibariki or should that be added to the Studio Ghibli main page article? I'm not exactly clear about the corporate structure of Tokuma Shoten & Ghibli Studios but Nibariki is/became the copyright holder for most of the material, including this film, per: http://www.ghibli.jp/30profile/000158.html 58.183.202.251 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can include the Nibariki mention here, but we should also mention it in the Studio Ghibli article as well if it is possible. Also, the box office figures can come from Ghibli publications as well. If I am correct, Ghibli became a Tokuma Shoten affiliate in 1999 before Ghibli split in 2005 and bought back the copyrights from their films. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes[edit]

This article does not include a themes section. We can somehow include sources here and I will write it up. I think the themes should be about the environment, since it shares the same things with other Ghibli films such as Princess Mononoke. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References to use[edit]

Here are a list of references we can use to improve the article in order to make it an GA/FA:

  • Berra, John (2010). Directory of World Cinema: Japan, Bristol: Intellect Books. ISBN 9781841503356
  • Cavallaro, Dani (2006). The animé art of Hayao Miyazaki, Sjeverna Karolina: MacFarland & Company, Inc.. ISBN 9780786423699
  • Hairston, Marc (2010). Miyazaki's Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind: Manga into Anime and Its Reception" in Johnson-Woods, Toni (e.d.), New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-2938-4
  • Johnson-Woods, Toni (2010). Manga: An Anthology of Global and Cultural Perspectives, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780826429384
  • Lunning, Frenchy (2010). Mechademia 5: Fanthropologies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816673872
  • McCarthy, Helen (1999). Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation : Films, Themes, Artistry, Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press, Inc. ISBN 9781880656419
  • McCarthy, Helen (2008). 500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide, Ilex. ISBN 1905814283, ISBN 9781905814282
  • Napier, Susan J. (2001). Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation, Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780312238636

GA nommed[edit]

After over 5 hours of constant work on the page, I believe this is now worthy of GA level. It is a massive overhaul, complete with a new section on Themes which include Miyazaki's influence, a good chunk on production, the box office revenue down to the number of tickets sold, distribution revenue. Additional citations and details for the Warriors of the Wind release complete with the international releases. The manga section is cleaned up and referenced. All three known video games have been covered as best as can possibly be done given that they were previously in "urban legends", but the works were found to be in existence. The "other" aspects of media is now complete. And reception is done up some more and the influences are now noted. It is quite comprehensive as a result. I think I have done everything Sjones highlighted and nommed it as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review it in the next coming days. Regards, ----Jionpedia 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The biggest problem is the length of plot, which passes 700 words, and it needs to be shortened. I am giving 2 days time, and if the plot is not shortened, then I am afraid I have to fail this. Regards, --Jionpedia 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disgree because WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE says there is no limit on size. Also, at less than 40 words over your suggestion of 700 is not a failing issue or part of the GA criteria. The form in which it is in is already highly compressed, a difference of 40-50 words would result in a major detriment in comprehension. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Here are the comments:
  • I am quite dissatisfied how the sections are placed, even it is not a part of the GA criteria. In my opinion, the Production section should be moved above the Themes section and merge Themes and Gliders into Production. Also move Reception below Releases.
    • "A total of 21 minutes and 50 seconds from the original production". This sentence and the source should be moved into External links. Also, replace the source with an English-language source if you find one.

This is from my side. Will pass the article after these comments have been resolved. Regards, --Jionpedia 12:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Themes and Production placement has been switched. Reception was already below Releases. The gilders and themes are not part of production. Themes is the discussion of the content and analysis of the work and are analysis of the content; it is not in any form part of the production of the film. The gilders are actually something I don't like in the article; it is not really about the movie, but it is most certainly not going into the production section - it has no ties to Ghilbi at all, much less the movie's production. Your last suggestion about moving the cuts made for the release of Warriors of the Wind to External Links doesn't even make any sense to me. Also, the source may be in German, but this is a secondary source to show, explicitly, what was removed from the movie and it goes cut by cut throughout it. There is no other source of such quality and precision on the internet and I've not seen any such analysis in any offline sources; there is no other option but to keep it because it is a valid source - Google Translate is a good option for reading though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to move the Reception section below Releases and its sub-sections. Never mind, I did it.

Final analysis[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job. Don't get it delisted! Thanks, --Jionpedia 07:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link & Copyright[edit]

I've replaced an outdated link. The page at the older link was in English and has one, incomplete, screenshot at http://web.archive.org/web/20070927223834/http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10037547 What is better? The old link with many missing elements -but available in English- or the current page substitute which is complete - but appears to be available only in Japanese? Copyright constructions of the pre-Ghibli, Nausicaä related materials. Nausicaä is listed with a Nibariki copyright on the Ghibli website. The Bandai product page for this specific item indicates that the copyright holder is Nibariki. I've been lacks in following up on my earlier suggestion above but the English language Wikipedia article for Nibariki will be created in the not too distant future. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other themes: Harry Harrison's Deathworld[edit]

The "Themes" section mentions several woks of Science Fiction as possible influences on the plot, but I am surprised that one particular one is missing: Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" (1960). In short, this describes a planet where the environment has turned against a settlement of human colonists whose attitude toward the environment is hostile while other groups of colonists have been able to integrate themselves with the environment and are consequently not attacked by it.--Death Bredon (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is under discussion, see talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the film epic or not[edit]

According to the definition of epic film(which may vary according to the outlook one have) many different sources claim the film to be an epic film.Following are some of the critic review who consider the film as epic.[1][2][3][4] That is excluding the countless user reviews. But it seems some editors believe that it is only an adventure film. So i am asking contributors if this film can be considered an epic film along side with it's adventure elements. And another important fact is it's author Hayao Miyazaki says this film is in very close relation to Princess Mononoke which has already been considered as an epic. The question is what makes this film much different to not consider it as an epic cause the scale, quality and subject remains almost the same in both the movies. Thank you very much.

Nibir2011 (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those reliable sources? They all appear to be self published sources and I don't see anything off hand that lets antagonie.blogspot cinema-crazed.com, and mrbrownmovies.com meets the standards of a reliable self published source. Only the A.V. Club stands the WP:SPS check and one review is not going to be enough to establish it as an "epic film", however, I don't see Tasha Robinson listed as a contributor on their about page. I am going to remove the three blog reviews, but leave the A.V. Club review for now. Secondly "animated post-apocalyptic fantasy adventure epic film" is just throwing a bunch of distributors at the reader. The article would benefit if if only the most essential distributors are left, "animated post-apocalyptic fantasy film". —Farix (t | c) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheFarix: All these reviews were published in rotten tomato and their names are following(Tim Brayton)(antagonie.blogspot) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/tim-brayton/; (Felix Vasquez Jr)(cinema-crazed.com) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/felix-vasquez-jr/; (Michael Dequina)(mrbrownmovies.com) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/michael-dequina/. Rottentomato says their reviews will be counted from any sources. So i think their opinion can be accepted. However i totally agree that this many classifiers actually disturbs the quality of the article. So i am rewording the structure little. Feel free to edit.Nibir2011 (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very written though. Good work. --Ekvastra (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Typographical error?[edit]

"The film was released on Blu-YAY in the United States and Canada on 8 March 2011" - What the is "Blu-YAY"? I cannot find results in internet searches to indicate that "Blu-YAY" is a publication brand or new disc format of some kind. Just a typographical error perhaps? -- 66.165.176.60 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



The artbook is definitely toeing the line with regards to notability, and it seems like it would be permastub material either way. I think the content of the artbook article could easily find a home in a subsection of the film article, or possibly the article on the manga. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any comment in this discussion for almost a month, I'm going to go ahead and perform the merge. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the reverts[edit]

 – TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chorake, thanks for your contributions to this article! Please make sure you understand the policy on self-published sources. Information from these kinds of sources are generally not reliable, and not eligible for citation on Wikipedia. I'd recommend that you read through the links in this message and the ones above, which will help you determine which sources are reliable. Let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think three separate sources are fine to confirm what information is already present in the credits for the film proper. Chorake (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on the number of sources but on their quality. Also, I'm going through your edit in more detail now, and I'm not sure the information you're adding needs to be in the article per WP:WEIGHT, which requires that balance be maintained in articles by including information included in reliable sources. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's only fair that the people involved in the post-production should be acknowledged by name if the same amount of detail is to be extended to those involved with the second. Chorake (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fine if you want to include that! I'm only saying that your additions need to be supported by sources that are secondary, independent, and reputably published, as described at WP:RS. Wikipedia isn't a reflection of editors' opinions, but a representation of information provided in reliable sources. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good. I don't want any misunderstanding between us, but as I'm sure you're aware for these kind of pedantic topics, it does take a little extra digging for reputable sources. Thank you for your patience. Chorake (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chorake: Thanks for doing that; the Almanac and American copyright database sources appear to support your edits. I've removed the unreliable database which you reinstated, but I don't think that matters anymore since all of the information is already sourced. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmu[edit]

in the lore section, Ohmu has been misspelled to Ohm. Could someone change this? I'm not sure how to :-(

Regards, Tom2st (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]