Talk:Ishirō Honda

Short article

The quality of this article is lacking, it's almost stub status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

TV wikitable

My revised edit was undone due to the old edit being considered "better" for revealing which episodes Honda directed. I feel its overkill to give the airdates and individual episodes their own columns. It's excessive and unorganized. I suggest the episodes list and airdates be covered in an EFN (see example below). @Andrzejbanas:, you reverted my edit. So what do you think about this compromise? It merges the old edit with the new edit. The expanded efn will be shown below the article, not on top of the table like it shows here. Feel free to remove the table upon replying. Armegon (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Year	Title	Director	Notes
1971	The Return of Ultraman	Yes	5 episodes

I think we could remove the network but might as well include the dates and episodes in the article. I think its more messy to have users hop between titles of episodes and tag. If you are worried about the size being unruly, perhaps its time to create a page that is caled "Ishiro Honda filmography" to keep things a bit more simple and clean. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a new page for the filmography section. Armegon (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not a consensus, you need much more input from other editors. I have restored the content. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Alright then. Since more input from other editors are needed and you already threw your hat into the ring, might as well hear your two cents. So what's your take? Armegon (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I love old Asian cinema and have seen a couple of Honda's films, this article really isn't that huge. There was no need to split his filmography from the article. I think there needs to be more focus to use other sources, there is a dominance from one source throughout the article and I feel that needs addressing first. Govvy (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind if we discuss that a bit later? The original issue that I brought up remains unresolved. It was regarding the TV wikitable. I edited the table to match the recommendations of WP:FILMOGRAPHY. It made the table more organized and contained, see here. Andrzejbanas reverted it to the previous/current edit because they felt it was better to show the airdates, TV channels, and titles that Honda directed per show. I felt this was excessive and unorganized. My proposal was a compromise by combining elements of both edits (see the table example above). Andrzejbanas then suggested a filmography article, which I prematurely created and that's how we ended up to where we are now. Armegon (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please follow the suggest guidelines; WP:ACTOR#Filmography tables. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: that's exactly what I did originally but my edit edit was reverted to the previous/current edit. Unless @Andrzejbanas: doesn't mind switching back to the new edit with WP:FILMOGRAPHY's recommendations or settling for my proposal of combining the old/new edits? Armegon (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a lot of guides specifically for television for directors in this filmography guide. I would leave the dates in to make it clear which episodes were released first, as that information is not readily available elsewhere. The networks can be scrapped as stated, but I feel like, which episodes he worked on do not extend the tables into anything outrageous. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the dispute I have with the current edit. I do feel that the episode/airdate columns extend into something outrageous. Adding the episodes list and airdates to an EFN is a decent compromise. We wouldn't be losing the info completely. It'll still be there and accessible through the EFN in the Notes column. Armegon (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like adding it there isn't useful and makes it more frustrating to read for viewers. Its not a difficult to understand table the way it is currently laid out. So far, I really don't see much positive change from altering it beyond dropping the networks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to drop "Notes" as well. That was mostly added for information for users if there was anything quick to be added. Nothing has been, so it can probably be scrapped. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What I would propose is something like this.

Television

Show	Premiere date	Episode	Ref(s)
The Newlyweds (Shinkon san)	7 January 1967	"The Woman, at That Moment" ("Onna wa sono toki")

I don't see how a table with four columns is considered busy beyond this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That still retains the very dispute I have with the current edit. Perhaps I didn't illustrate my point as well as I thought I did, my apologies. The issue that I have is that each episode and their airdates are given their own rowspan instead of unifying them under a single rowspan like WP:FILMOGRAPHY recommends. The current edit creates excessive stacks of individual airdates and episode titles. I don't see how an EFN would be frustrating for readers. They're used all the time. Armegon (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No no, I understood you. I just don't agree. I think adding the years is a bit more specific for television. With some exceptions, most directors aren't releasing 5 films a year, here we have several tv shows released in the same year. To clarify their release order, I think the original release should be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hm. It appears we've reached an impasse, and it appears Govvy has chosen not to contribute further to this discussion. We could reach out for a third opinion since the situation now meets the requirements of WP:3O. Armegon (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Armegon: & @Andrzejbanas:

First one technicality just for information, Since already 3 people are in discussion WP:4o need to apply as per Wikipedia culture, Pl. correct if my perception is not correct enough. Said that with following point we will come to main point.

I have earlier observed a case @ Meray Paas Tum Ho#Episodes where in row after row adds nothing new to the information than episode release dates. My personal perception -and that is how encyclopedic logic should work- has been in encyclopedia, focus should be on encyclopedic paragraph writing than decorative tabulation where one can do without tables. So if my position is acceptable that would be most simple for both of you to work on.

If not then, Wikipedians usually go by specific written guidelines and on this specific aspect about 'relevancy of table format where most of data is same in every cell for every date' need to be discussed through RFC.

If user Andrzejbanas is not on the same page then RFC is better option so others will deliberate.

Said that @Armegon: Wikipedia is not democracy but moves according to democratic vote where people believing in non-encyclopedic ways too get precedence lot of time so RFC also wont guarantee you a success. So if you are too serious file RFC and if not ignore and let it go.

Bookku (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I've removed the WP:3O request since an RfC has been opened below. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on TV Wikitable Content Dispute

Seeking further discussion on whether content on the TV wiki table should be presented like this or presented like this. Armegon (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Something appears to have gone wrong with the transclusion for this RfC; it's showing up on RfC lists as Talk:Ishir? Honda. Not sure how to go about addressing this, I've never seen this issue before. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have, more than a dozen times back to September 2017, most recently in May 2020. The problem is the diacritic ō which Legobot (talk · contribs) cannot handle; the fix is to create a redirect, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The first option looks like this. The second option looks like this. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• A mix of both? - Option two doesn't have a column indicating they were all directing roles, and the prose doesn't clarify that anywhere that I can see. If the air date, channel, and all that extra information is actually in the source cited, it seems like useful information that isn't available in another Wikipedia article. (For example, the table shows he directed 5 episodes of Return of Ultraman, but the infobox on Return of Ultraman lists him as the only director for all 51 episodes?) Argento Surfer (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Yes! That's exactly what I was proposing above, see here, by combing the old edit with the new edit. The episode titles and airdates would be covered in an EFN in the wikitable's notes column. The info would still be there, just moved to a different area that's still accessible to readers. Armegon (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think putting that in an EFN is a terrible idea. It'll look cluttered down there, and not every reader will see it. If it's going to be on the page, it should really be on the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks equally as cluttered down they way it is now. The whole point of the EFN is to avoid clutter. My edit was following the recommendations of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, but since the episode list/airdates don't want to be lost, the EFN was the best compromise I came up with. Readers won't miss it. It will still be there via the EFN link. Armegon (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mix of both. I would go with the shorter versions of aspects from both tables: the first Television table without individual episodes listed, and the second Films table which doesn't restrict the column size and which has shorter Notes. Watch the capitalization per MOS:JOBTITLE. Relegating extra information to footnotes is fine. Tables should preferably be dense without a lot of wasted white space, whatever the browser width and text size. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I'm a bit confused. Which parts specifically of both edits do you propose mixing? And when you say footnotes, are you referring to the EFN I proposed? Armegon (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the two examples in the opening statement, which were each unhelpfully labelled as "presented like this". When I said "first" I was referring to the first example and when I said "second" I was referring to the second example. Any lengthy note should be shifted into a footnote, particularly if it would be repeated in several cells. However, I'm not saying that the footnotes should be full of trivia; it still has to be notable information to be included in the article. If the sources are properly archived, readers can always go to them for more details. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I see. So does the first example match what you're proposing? Armegon (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:@Argento Surfer:@Govvy:@Andrzejbanas: So how should we proceed with the wikitable in a way that can reach a consensus? Andrzejbanas, I'd appreciate it if contributed more to this discussion since you originally opposed and reverted my edit. Armegon (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't weigh in here because I figured I'd said what I wanted to say earlier. Generally, people here seem to want a mix of both our styles. I still stand we can drop network, and the empty notes section. Otherwise, everything else I feel is good to keep in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't been paying attention, but as long as I can read the table either is fine, my qualm was that you split the table into a separate article when that clearly wasn't needed. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: That may have been premature on my part. Apologies for that and apologies for pinging you again, but this question is for you. It's been suggested so far to combine both edits. What do you think should be retained and removed for the new wikitable? Armegon (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the TV table, I really don't see the need to supply the TV network in a column and at the same time you're separating the air-date from the episode which is kinda strange. I don't think that should be happening. But I like seeing the episode list, it's not long, or cumbersome. The smaller table lacks all the information the bigger one provides. I was wondering have you thought about a table, where the TV show title is in a single row, with all the episodes underneath? Govvy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean like a separate wikitable solely dedicate to the episodes list? Armegon (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Date	Episode	Note	Ref
Return of Ultraman
9 October 1969	"Honey, It's a Presidential Order" ("Anata shacho meirei yo")
30 October 1969	"We're Going South-Southwest" ("Nan nan sei ni ikuno yo")
Husbands, Men, Be Strong (Otto yo otoko yo tsuyokunare)

I mean a table similar to this above. Govvy (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd Support the table above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this too. It would make the table smaller but I feel we should remove the Notes column since it was never used. Armegon (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ditto on the notes ..uhh..note! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we add the new table now or wait for further consensus? Armegon (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt to tag some others who were involved in the conversation to get a quick yes or no. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Or you could just go ahead and Do It!. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I see you're a man of culture as well! lol Armegon (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Haha. I'm not against changing the table up as I said I agree with it, I figured giving it some time for others who were involved earlier wouldn't be a bad thing for a relatively uncontroversial edit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Time of death

I noticed on the online copy of Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film, from Godzilla to Kurosawa which I transferred to archive.org, says that he died at 11:30 am when all other sources say that he died at 11:30 pm. Should this be noted in the article? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a good compromise would be if we mention both, like "[Source A] states [this time of death], however, [source B] states [this time of death]". Armegon (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Film titles

I understand that WP:COMMONNAME exists, and states " it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". However, outside the Godzillaseries, these films don't really have English titles as per Galbraith's book, they were not really released in English-language territories. I don't think it's appropriate to give them English titles as these films were never named that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I see very little usage of the native titles and as I have already explained to you Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film and the official website both use the translations. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The key thing is they use "translations", not official release titles and to readers it would be misleading to say it is. It's convenient to have an English-language title (i.e: nobody commons speaking English says Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, they say The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly). I'd suggest to "fix" this, is we have a separate heading for a translated title if there is no official English-language release of the film. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"No" in the filmography box

I don't think we should put "No" in the filmography box as the sources don't actually state that he "did not" do any specific job, but only states what he did do. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I added it because nearly every article on Wikipedia uses it (eg. Quentin Tarantino filmography#Film) - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 7:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no real official standardized formatting per se, but I feel it's more accurate to the source which only says what they are credited as, not what they aren't. If that' makes any sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Legends of Tomorrow reference

For this article to be nominated for GA, I need to fix this reference. The CW isn't a reliable source, and I can't find online sources which talk about what happens in the episode (although the man's official website mentions it being based around Honda-san). Any ideas? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)