Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge Teto

I agree with whoever added the merge on Teto, it would be better as part of this article (or the manga version). --h2g2bob (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I think that the merge would be a good idea...afterall, the Teto article, is only what, one paragraph? (66.203.32.62 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Nausicaa Website not allowed as an External link??

And why is my www.thevalleyofthewind.0catch.com a valid external link? This site is very informative and explains Nausicaa in great detail, the link is not intended as an advertisment, only a source of information to people looking to learn more about Nausicaa of the valley of the wind.

It is a fan/personal site and it is full of illegal content that violates copyrights. Wikipedia does NOT support such activities and such sites are completely inappropriate for linking. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Crystalis?

The NES and later Gameboy game Crystalis is linked to this Movie and appears to have several references to the movie and the manga. Could this be something worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.142.218 (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if a valid source can be found confirming the references are intentional. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters, Ships and species

In the manga, there are a lot of characters, several sort of ships and various fictive species. Why there are not, as in the french version of this page, section about this in this page ? Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a section about them wouldn't be encyclopaedic. Informative, sure, but well beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Now, if you could link back such information with real-world context, such as where the idea for a certain gun or vehicle came from, then you'd have something. Ong elvin (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the point he is trying to make. The manga version has its own article and this discusses the characters, creatures and plot (although some of it certainly non-noteworthy). Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact other articles exist with such information doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in this article. Many articles are written with little formal reviewing. In the end, in-universe information is fine, but it should not be more than what is necessary to convey the a plot synopsis. Weapon, vehicle and character bios are not required for this. Also try reading WP:FICTION. Ong elvin (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Film and Manga

I have suggested that the manga article be merged back into this article. Per WP:MOS-AM, they should be covered in within a singular article rather than separately. The differences between the two are not so significant as to warrant a split. Additionally, this whole article needs to be retooled to better emphasize that the manga is the primary work, not the film. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support The current amount of content and coverage does not seem to warrant a split. G.A.S^talk 07:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I do not see any such guidance in WP:MOS-AM. The film and the manga are significantly different, which is pretty obvious from the material in each of the articles (production, plot, characters etc). Merging them would make a messy and confusing article for a non-expert reader. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote: "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: 1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or 2. The article becomes too large." As obviously neither article is too long, please show how they differe sharply? Same basic plot, same characters, the only difference is the film only adapts a part of the manga, which is not a significant difference nor sharp variance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I interpreted "differ sharply in plot, characters or in other major characteristics" differently to you: The film is an eco-themed action-adventure story with a small number of poorly developed characters covering a period of two days; the manga is an epic philsophical journey to uncover an (ecological) mystery with a large number of well-developed characters that takes weeks or even months to complete. Naturally the style is also, therefore, different. That some of the characters and some of the action scenes are shared does not in any way make these the same product.Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not oppose the merge, but since I have read the manga version quite a lot of times, I would suggest using the manga version as the main plot. The manga plot is much longer and except for a few characters, a whole lot of other important characters that appeared in the later part of the manga does not appear in the movie. MythSearcher^talk 14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The film article does emphasize that the manga is the primary work (several times throughout the article). Both articles are developed quite well, and the differences between the two works is significant (plot, character changes, etc., as discussed in the articles themselves, though those parts could be expanded upon). There is certainly enough material out there to warrant and support two articles. As for the length of the articles, each is about 20k, which is decently sized, so I see no reason to merge them. The only thing I can see which needs to be done here is expanding each of them, especially with more emphasizing of the differences between them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Merging manga and film would make the article focused on the original work (manga), with a subsection on its adaptation. The film is too "notable" to be reduced to an afterthought in an article on the manga.--Nohansen (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. Having read the manga and viewed the film myself, the differences between them aren't as significant as the differences in adaptations of other series that are covered in one article, and it seems to me that the main cause of these differences is the fact that the film is adapted from the first two or so volumes of the manga, so later plot elements of the film are changed to give it a satisfactory conclusion. On the other hand, as Nohansen pointed out, the film has definite notability separate from that of the manga - if we decided article structure based on notability, this one would end up focusing on the film with the manga as an afterthought. I would say there's definitely enough information out there ultimately for each medium to support its own article, it's just a matter of someone going out and looking for it. In the meantime, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, if that's what's decided. —Dinoguy1000 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The film is extremely notable, far more so than the manga is, being one of the most well known animated films in Japanese history. Covering them on one page would reduce the attention given to the film, in favor of the manga. For other examples where this is the case, even limiting ourselves to Ghibli films, we have Howl's Moving Castle (film), separate from Howl's Moving Castle, Kiki's Delivery Service, separate from Kiki's Delivery Service (novel), Tales of Earthsea (film), separate from Earthsea, etc. In cases where an adaptation is largely notable completely outside of the original source material, keeping it on its own page is appropriate.kuwabaratheman (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge the fun thing is, I do not oppose the oppose people theory, the problem is not about the film being not notable, the problem comes from the less notable manga. The manga article contains more plot information than the film, yet as mentioned above, it is only different in the length of the plot, with more characters as a result, but not really that much different in terms of things like the world background, species and such. A few main characters are shared, and are not much different in the two media. It would seem very reasonable that a merge could result in a less than 32kb article. MythSearcher^talk 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It is very funny that someone who ignores the original name of Möwe and the original intentions of creator, and insisted on using the manga transliteration version made up word mehve that contains no real meaning, would oppose a merger proposal with the manga page. MythSearcher^talk 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please keep comments focused on the discussion at hand rather than taking snipes at others in the discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am only interested in why the manga is used as a source in the article that s/he is so opposed to merging. I have no intention of being uncivil, although I must admit that I am quite mad at him/her totally cutting out all traces of the word and ignore other sources, yet I still stick to the question of why is someone using the manga as a source in this article would oppose merging them?. MythSearcher^talk 09:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose like Akira (film) and Akira (manga), the differences between the two are substantial, and the body of work written about each is vast. Both movie and manga have made a significant impact - I see people claiming that the manga is less notable, but that certainly doesn't reflect the impact it had in Japan, or even its status as one of the earliest manga translated into English. Doceirias (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I assumed this page was for the manga - why isn't this at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) and the original work at this article title, following conventions? Doceirias (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Since the merge seems opposed, I think this should be moved to Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) and then the manga article moved back here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - One is the basis for the other. I would no more support this merge than I would support merging the Lord of the Rings movies and books, the books inspired the movies, just as the manga inspired the movie, but they are still separate entities.

• Oppose The film has to deal with the butcher edits of Warriors of the Wind, while the manga deals with a longform storyline. Merging is usually reserved for those times when the synopsis could be interchanged with either article. MMetro (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  Uhh... what? Warriors of the Wind is discussed in all of one section in this article (and I'm sure Studio Ghibli/Miyazaki would say even that is too much =P ); the rest is devoted to discussing the original film and its uncut retranslation. —Dinoguy1000 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Support The movie is varies little from the beginning of the manga (these changes can easily be summarized), and both works are by Miyazaki so I find it logical to keep them in the same article as neither of the articles are especially long and has much of the same information.--Painocus (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Both are major works of art (even if less known, the manga is one of the best comics/manga/bande dessinée I have read, and I have read quite a few), with significant differences in plot. While one could argue that the movie is little different from the beginning of the manga, there are many other aspects of the movie that are important to discuss at length, notably the pivotal role it played in Miyazaki's carrier. Both articles should reach a fair size, a merge would be too long and difficult to balance between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Din Ycae (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

It seems like the discussion is long pass and suggestion of moving the film page to (film) and having the manga page here, anyone want to oppose? MythSearcher^talk 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's 7:3 against. It stays as is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Move and merge is different. The above discussion is about merge, not move. Little commented on move or not. Someone opposed the merge proposal suggested a move. MythSearcher^talk 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And besides, the above was a discussion, not a vote - it would be quite possible to go ahead with the merge with 7 against and 3 for, if those against were unable to put forth any compelling reasons why the merge would not take place (and before anyone flames me, this is a hypothetical example - I'm not commenting on any actual reasoning here). That being said, I agree to the move - the manga is the original work, so it should occupy the main article, and the film should have the disambiguator. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is fine where it is. We have to consider that, in all probability, people searching for "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" will be looking for the film, not the manga. "Page view statistics" reveals that this page was viewed 28790 times last December. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) was only viewed 3558 times. Which means users who typed in "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" found what they were looking for with their first try. For a related example, see The Godfather.

Also, there's the fact that over 250 article link to the film's article. Only about 100 link to the manga.--Nohansen (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mehve/Möwe

Listen, the original spelling is Möwe, which actually got a meaning as seagull. The wingspan source called it Möwe, thus the article should not alter it since it is a quote from an official source. The opensky project also called it Möwe(or Moewe replacing the ö) thus that paragraph should also follow the source. The incorrect spelling can stay since it is the official Enlgish transliteration, but it would be totally irrelevant when quoting sources using the name Möwe. Just like the Aerith Gainsborough article, in the FFVII and FFT section, since the English transliteration is incorrectly made as Aeris, we use Aeris in those sections, (not the new FFT game portion that corrected the naming) but not in other sections where sources called her Aerith. We follow the sources, not how you are used to call it. MythSearcher^talk 08:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a fairly comprehensive way of undermining your own argument; consequently all your base are belong to us.

• You say "the original spelling is Möwe", but clearly it doesn't say that in the Japanese version because it's a German word. As such it has become a [noun] and we say it as we hear it. This is like saying "Sol" (French word for the sun) for describing the Earth's star in science fiction. We do not transliterate this to "Sun". Note also that Nausicaa has been translated rather than transliterated - the concepts (particularly in the manga) are complex but clear, which is not what happens with most Japanese imports, e.g. FFVII.
• The original English version of FFVII used "Aeris", this has been subsequently revised to "Aerith" in later games/videos/books using the same character. This has not happened with the English version of Nausicaa - the 2004 edition uses the same wording as the 1983 edition.
• The manga/film or articles by Mr Miyazaki/Viz would be official sources; model kits, websites, and some guys making something that looks similar are not.
• The issue of whether the transliteration is correct is irrelevant, but you have not provided sources with sufficient weight to prove it anyway. As such you seem to be deleting sources and replacing them with original research. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed and Nihonjoe. Nihonjoe's edit did a very nice job of balancing things out by using the official English word (per our MoS, Wikipedia guidelines, and general project consensus), while also mentioning its German origins. Your edits appear more OR and reflect a non-neutral dislike of the English versions rather than an appropriate, well sourced discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The source giving the wingspan is calling it Möwe, not Mehve. That is sourced. The part mentioning the Opensky project also is not Mehve. There is no point in changing those back to Mehve and not stick to the sources. The model kit is released by Bandai, is officially licensed by Ghibli, the information is directly from Ghibli, thus there is no OR. Instead, the insisting in using Mehve on those parts is not sticking to the source. MythSearcher^talk 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should a model kit and an unofficial fan project take precedence over the officially licensed manga, which has consistently used "mehve" over two print editions and 21 years? This isn't following policy, it's the insertion of personal opinion and preference for the perceived "correct" term over the official translation/transliteration. The sources you are referring to don't support your argument either; they are only relevant to the short blurbs about the model kit and the Opensky project, and otherwise have no bearing on the mehve itself, or its section in the article. —Dinoguy1000 18:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The original spelling used by Miyazaki is メーヴェ, not "möwe" or "mehve". All of the official English language translations of the manga, as well as the official English language releases of the anime, use the spelling "mehve". Now, it is true that Miyazaki was just transliterating "möwe" into Japanese. No one is disputing that. However, both WP:MOS-JA and WP:MOS-AM very clearly state that the official English version takes precedence over any other version. There are no exceptions to that as the official English version will always be the most common English form out there as the company who does an official English version is going to be doing everything they can to sell as many as they can, thereby making the official English version the most common by sheer numbers alone. I reworded it to include the German source of the word, and that is sufficient to clue people in to the origins of the word.

Now, the only exception I see here is if the model is mentioned specifically in the article or if the fan project is mentioned specifically, and they use the "möwe" spelling. I don't see a problem using "möwe" if we mention the official title of those items and the official title uses the "möwe" spelling. Other than that, though, we use the official English version used by the publishers of the manga and the anime. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I am insisting the parts that are quoted from the source uses what the sources said, not the transliteration. Also, while I was kept seeing the source from the English manga, I see no source of it being that way in the film, where this article is about the film, not the manga. If it is in the film of the America(or NA version) at least source it. If the English official transliteration must be used, then the other countries translations to English should also be considered, as I recall, the Hong Kong TVB pearl version used glider from the beginning to the end without anything like Mehve or Möwe. I see that the official Ghibli paragraph written in the model is totally ignored in these discussions, and is always degraded as an unimportant source. It is not unimportant, it is the first hand direct source from Ghibli, not other unimportant licensers. And the most commonly used version, by a simple google test, returned 5540 results for möwe Nausicaä, but only 3370 for mehve Nausicaä. So, do not tell me mehve is more commonly used without actual sources to support that,(I would remind everyone here that I am not jumping to the conclusion that möwe is more commonly used, I am just saying jumping to the conclusion of mehve more commonly used does not have a strong reliable source supporting it.) since mehve is only used in the North America version, and this is what you are trying to argue about, the NA version is everything in the English wiki, all other sources are not important. BTW, I never said the Opensky project source is what I used for supporting the use in words for the title nor the section, but the project is using möwe(or at least moewe in this page) as the name of the machine in the project, not mehve, thus it should be noted that the article should be directly quoting what the source is using. MythSearcher^talk 13:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The manga got more different gliders hanging around, if the articles are merged, then those might need to be mentioned. If the articles are not merged, I would suggest having a similar section in the manga article saying this glider is not unique in the series unlike the film version. MythSearcher^talk 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The film does as well. Nausicaa is seen launching children into the sky on many different coloured gliders at the end. In fact you are correct that in the English language release the word used throughout is "glider", and it might be more appropriate for this word to be used instead of möwe or mehve in this article. However, the Japanese language track uses a word that sounds like "mehve". This is different from the German pronounciation which uses the 'o' in "möwe" and sounds more like "mor-veh"). I note from your profile that you have some knowledge of Japanese so perhaps you could tell us why this is? On the second issue - the model you keep bringing up - sources have different weights and the primary source carries a lot more weight than anything else. I'm not even going to comment on the use of Google, which should never be used for statistics. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a firm source on why me is used instead of mo, but in the original Japanese katakana, the word is メーヴェ, which does starts with me, and seems to be a common practice instead of an actual pronunciation.(just like Japanese katakana of energy is often E ne ru giエネルギー instead of the closer pronunciation E na jiエナジー) The model IS a primary source, if what Studio Ghibli said is not primary, I do not see why the company who paid Ghibli for the license is, which I do not see why this cannot get through. It is not a model built by some unknown third party, it is a product that uses sources provided by Studio Ghibli, which from the Japanese article of メーヴェ, in which the link was removed from this article with your reverting without reading what I have changed in it, says that the same information was also in the ロマンアルバム, which is an official film guide book, and I would assume that would be a very primary source to you? I will not insist on using Möwe as the title of the section if the section is placed in the manga article(or the merged) but since I am quite sure the film version never used the word mehve(now confirmed with your reply), and the Japanese official roman words for it is möwe, I would insist on using that at least when following Japanese sources and the opensky project for consistency with the sources. And Like I said, I am not trusting google for the stats, I am just saying that mehve might not be more commonly used as claimed by Nihonjoe said, without a source. MythSearcher^talk 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinda off-topic (sorry), but "エネルギー" is actually based on the German "Energie", not the English "energy". This explains that.

(and "Sol" is Latin for "Sun", not French, but that's another matter)

As for "Möwe"/"mehve"... I really don't know much about Nausicaä, but yeah, I believe the German "Möwe" would be "メーヴェ" / "Mēve" in kana... Like Nihonjoe said, I believe it's pretty clear what Miyazaki had in mind, but that's not the problem, here. If the official English translations of both the manga and the movie use "mehve" (and it looks like it, from what I understand?), even if other official sources use "Möwe", I think we're stuck with "mehve", here. As annoying as it may sound (and believe me, I find that kind of problems quite annoying myself). Erigu (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the movie did not contain the word, it is simply glider in the movie, like the discussion above, even the one who opposed the change to Möwe agreed with that. MythSearcher^talk 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So it's "メーヴェ" in the Japanese manga and movie, "mehve" in the English translation of the manga, and "glider" in the English translation of the movie?

I'm not sure that changes much, does it? Erigu (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So it is not the official English translation in all versions and it could not be shown to be more popular than Möwe, the Official word used in Studio Ghibli romanization.(no source could be given and a simple google test showed Möwe is used more on the google data base.) Thus, 1) Mehve should not be used primarily in the film article, since it is not the official translation. 2) The article should give more credit to the original intent of the word. 3) Wordings should follow the given sources. MythSearcher^talk 15:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is used in the official english translation for the manga, you can't say it isn't the official translation. It might be merely an official translation, but it is still official; if the official translation for the film uses glider, then that is what the film article must use. Möwe can only be used when directly quoting - not citing - sources that have chosen to use that spelling, which would probably be confined to any section discussing - as briefly as possible - the debate over the correct name. Doceirias (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem then becomes why use Mehve over Möwe. policy goes for the more popular term used, and no one can provide firm sources stating Mehve is used more wildly, and eventhough it is less trustable, a google test gives results of Möwe over Mowe over Glider Mehve, where results are 5XXX -> 4XXX -> 4XXX -> 3XXX when the word is searched along with the word Nausicaä in English only sites.(and no, Möwe by itself got a meaning and no way a search with only Mehve could be compared to it.) Since Möwe is not only official, but a very simple google test supports it popularity as well unlike the argument Nihonjoe made There are no exceptions to that as the official English version will always be the most common English form out there as the company who does an official English version is going to be doing everything they can to sell as many as they can, thereby making the official English version the most common by sheer numbers alone. Thus giving the WP:NCCN 3.1 policy and offiicialness, Möwe should be used in this article, but not the manga article, in which Mehve should be used per the WP:NCCN 3.3 since the google test is for all sources and not limited to manga only, it is obviously not suitable in the manga with the official English translation. MythSearcher^talk 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on the film should call it a "glider"; the article on the manga should call it a "mehve". A hypothetical article on the model could call it a Mowe. A German wikipedia article on the film/article/model could call it a Mowe too (if this is how they've translated it back into German). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the model is the official title used by Studio Ghibli, then the article on the film should use Möwe, following the original official spelling and more common spelling(which at least have the google test supporting it and not an unsourced Mehve is more common statement by fellow wiki editors.). MythSearcher^talk 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we start again at the beginning... Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall I remind you that the word is used in an English sentence in the model, so your German not English argument does not work, and your more commonly used argument does not have any source supporting it, your no prove to be official argument is simply denying the fact that Studio Ghibli is the license keeper and official production company. All you are doing here is simply going for a WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to the name change, and have nothing to support you arguments and only denying facts. MythSearcher^talk 08:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read anything anyone here has said? This has nothing to do with "common usage". Why? The word "glider" is user 100% of the time in the English language film. The word "mehve" is used 100% of the time in the English language manga. The sources are... the film and the manga. They are official sources and for determining the content of the film and the manga they are the only relevant sources. Where you are talking about intentions, citing weak secondary sources or merchandise packaging, and carrying out original research ("google tests") we are talking about verifiable facts. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, merchandise packaging by the official company is far more authoritative than you, I am sure about that. I use the google test just to show that Nihonjoe's argument about popularity of the term is unsourced and not supported by the only known result that could be easily come by. Go read The naming policy before you say This has nothing to do with "common usage". The verifiable fact is that "The official company used the word Möwe for the product" in which all you can do in your argument is to deny it and claim that it is weak or not related, which is obviously your own arrogant view on the topic and I have said above, the same term, Möwe, is also used in the ロマンアルバム of the film, which is obviously a very strong source that is not only merchandise packaging. All you did is ignore the comment. BTW, the name of the packaging and the model style is from that particular source as well, I used the model as the source simply because it is simple for everyone to see in the link. MythSearcher^talk 14:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Myth, if anyone here is ignoring poicy, it's you. From the beginning, you've been cherry-picking your facts and sources, and you are the only one here arguing on the basis of I[DONT]LIKEIT. In regards to the manga, the most authoritative source is the manga, not a tangentially related model kit. If the kit had its own article, the term "möwe" would be used, and anyone trying to argue the use of "mehve" or "glider" based on their use in the manga or film wouldn't get anywhere because the usage of these specific terms in this way has no bearing on the model, just as the use of möwe with the model has no bearing on the terminology from the manga or film. I'm hardly a disinterested third party, but even I can tell you've got attachment issues here and should step back from these articles for awhile. —Dinoguy1000 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So how do you explain the film book? All of your arguments ignored it from the very first time to the end(okay, I have only mentioned it twice) IF the model for the film is not in any way related, say, if I totally ignore it and not use it as an argument, you still have to answer for the fact that THE FILM BOOK uses the term möwe. MythSearcher^talk 21:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the film book is still NOT the film itself. The primary source wins, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, where on earth do you have a policy stating the official publication of a film is less important source than the film? A film book tells from the creator view of how their created the film, and how the film is intended to be. It is technically also a primary source by wiki standards, and a much more reliable primary source due to its nature of separated into chapters and pages. On the other hand, most of the deletionist argument in AfDs normally views watching the film and using it as a source as WP:OR and not reliable. And in fact I have watched the film for at least 5 times in the past and I still cannot be so sure that it uses glider from the beginning to the end without a single mention of the name at all. Yes, I can support that it was never used in the film, or, even if it is used in the film, the pronunciation of it will be so similar that no one can tell them apart if they are using mehve or möwe, thus it is still OR to call it either without a source stating how it was spelled officially, like an English subtitled DVD version, in which I never saw it used as a source in the whole discussion. To whoever thinks that I have attachment problems and I don't dislike the term Mehve, I have used mehve in front of möwe from the beginning to the end, and I am only serious about this because all of the sources I see here is not supporting the mehve supporters and they are even unwilling to accept the term möwe to a point where they have to instead stick with the term glider and ignore the official film book. It seems that it is simply because the pronunciation of the terms do not look the same for mehve and möwe, and thus people who are used to mehve cannot accept the change to möwe due to their language habit. MythSearcher^talk 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The film book is "much more reliable"? If it's different to the film then it's not a very reliable source regarding the film is it? The film itself - the topic of this article - uses "glider" throughout (no doubt you'll be astounded to learn that the subtitles mirror this). As I have said before, if you want to write an article on a book or a model and label it according to the name used by that book/model then that is your choice. Anyway, on one point I do agree: this is ridiculous. I don't propose to keep answering misconceived arguments. I will, however, keep the article on my watch list and will revert any speculative or unsourced edits. I suggest other editors do the same. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on this, I will suggest you to also keep watch on the articles Joe Carpenter, which in the anime, manga and novel never used the name Joe Carpenter in it, and various other pages like List of Cosmic Era mobile units where tons of guide books name various fictional items full names that never appear in the show itself. Glider is a common word, it can mean every single glider in the show, while that particular glider Nausicaä used is specifically named with an official source, thus if you use glider as the title, either you have to reflect the fact that there are other gliders in the show(given that it is pretty common in the valley of the wind in the film in contrast with what the manga told us about only 1 child of the wind would be able to learn and use them and remain in the village) and you might want to also include other sections like gunship(This, is comparatively also a quite popular item in the show that comes in number) or you might want to at least call it a jet glider to distinguish it from others non-powered gliders. The current edit of the article simply denies the authoritative record of it being called möwe, and only slightly said that the manga translation is based on that without mentioning it being the official Japanese name for the film as well. MythSearcher^talk 13:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I omitted to mention I would revert original research too. (1) Where does it say Nausicaa's glider is the only one with a name? That's original research. (2) Where does it say that there can only be one "child of the wind" or that there is only one glider? That's original research (the manga does not say this at all). (3) Where does it say that Nausicaa prefers the glider to the gunship? That's unsourced (possibly OR)) even if it is plausible. I don't understand the last sentence of what you wrote. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say that your blind revert is totally unacceptable, which removes everything just to show your WP:POINT and yes, you are the one who keep blindly reverting and do not accept any source I have added. to answer your questions 3 and 2, I would suggest you go read page 33 of volume 1 and page 115 of volume 6(since I am not using the English version, page numbers might vary a bit), it is specifically stated by her and the elders in both parts and obviously it is not OR as you have suggested, I have merely added a little bit of plot into the section that is related to the gliders. For question 1, is it the only one with a name, I never said it is the only one with a name, I simply said that it is given a specific name, while others were not, in both film and manga. MythSearcher^talk 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the section has been cleaned up, but just for reference: in the English version of the manga: you are correct she prefers the mehve to the gunship (pg.26 volume 1); but "mehve" is used to describe gliders generally (pg. 108/9 volume 6) and Tepa is simply another child of the wind (it is not a unique position, the old women are simply worried about Nausicaa), presumably like so many others from Eftal (pg.82, volume 2). If you do not have a copy of the English version you should not presume to tell us what it says. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And I see that you have no edits that actually helped improve the article, other than blindly reverting. I assumed the English version got the same plot line as the Japanese version, and I simply tried to quote what I see in it about that particular section. If you think parts of the edit is not correct or suitable, change those parts. It is much better than reverting blindly and removing other parts of the edit. MythSearcher^talk 06:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

His revert was wholly appropriate and if he hadn't done it, I would. YOU are continuing to attempt to push your personal point of view in this discussion and in this article, despite complete opposition to it. You are clearing displaying a heavy bias in the topic and, as Dinoguy1000 has already noted, it seems you like need to step back away from this article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you could keep the source and edit the section to a better state, go for it, if you are going to blindly revert it, stop. I am simply adding sources to the section, and did not change the title of it nor remove the English name. I did not go and change the whole section or blindly revert it like what you are doing, I tried to stick to what you guys insisted to and added in more info and sources to improve it. A simple revert from you guys are not only removing sourced portions of it but also keeps all the actual style improvements like re-adding the space in front of the title and OR like stating it looks like a seagull back into the article. MythSearcher^talk 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could stop reverting to your self admittedly bad section and instead do only the appropriate edits. More to the point, why does the glider even HAVE a section? Most of its just plot stuff, and the last bit could easily be incorporated into a reception section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, it was merged to this page, since it is a separated article by its own long time ago, and someone did tried to get rid of the word möwe in the edits, going as far as removing the original sentence that it is a german word after the merge. It is at least notable enough to have a third party project trying to build one, so I guess it is why it has its own section. MythSearcher^talk 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it's a little late for this, but I have to comment on your above examples, Myth. Joe Carpenter's name is pure OR, and is reflected in the second sentence of the article ("Though his real name is unknown, as "Joe Carpenter" may simply be another alias, it is still safe to assume that it may be his real name."). As such, the article needs to be moved to Mr. Joker, which is the name he is called throughout the R.O.D. franchise, and it currently redirects to the current article anyways. And as for the Gundam example, for the millionth time, we all know the Gundam stuff is a huge mess,a and it's being (very) slowly cleaned up - lack of interest/manpower isn't a problem that's easily fixed, you know. —Dinoguy1000 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And that, my friend, is exactly what I wanted to do. I have known him as Joker in all of the series, personally I do not recall hearing him as Joe Carpenter(seems to be unsourced as well), yet the article is a good example of what he needs to watch anyway. The Gundam pages is a series mess, but using the official name is still correct. they might be in excess, but correct. Oh, I guess I forgot a very fundamental policy of wikipedia, it does not care for correctness, but only verifiability, but still, the sources I have listed are verifiable, so we don't have this problem here. MythSearcher^talk 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Create a character page for nausicaa?

I've been wondering if it would be feasible to create a character page for Nausicaa. I've written a draft in the sandbox - does this prove enough notability for it to become an article on its own? -Malkinann (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. Difficult. You have met the main criteria by drawing on independent and interesting references. However, I am not sure that these actually give her enough "weight" to merit an individual article. Are there parallel examples? Quite possibly, and there have certainly been articles on other elements of this story, but these are even less notable than Nausicaa herself and are generally deleted or merged back. Therefore I think the work you have done here should be integrated into the article on the film (most of the quotes seem to relate to the film rather than the manga). However, if you decide to make an article anyway I think you should write/find more content so that it covers both the film and the manga (her character is much more developed in the latter). I'm happy to help with this and find a suitable lead picture if you do. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer of help - I've not read the manga so I can't write about the in-universe stuff. --Malkinann (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good start, but would recommend fleshing it out more in the user space before attempting to create a standalone article, including more creation/conception information, the character summary, and a longer reception section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that what is there is plenty well referenced to be moved into mainspace. An article doesn't have to be perfect when it's created, and this one is certainly far more referenced than almost any other article when it's created. Expansion will come with time, and allow for other editors to participate as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks better refed than the manga article to me. Go for it, and if somehow this is not going well, at least do not link to a redirect page from this page that comes back to this one. MythSearcher^talk 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had another go at the draft. --Malkinann (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Random side-question...rather than putting it in the main Sandbox and having to redo it, why not just work on it in your user sandbox so its just there until you are ready go to with it. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much ready to go with it - I'm just waiting on the word that my draft demonstrates that Nausicaa has sufficient notability to have her own article. I don't keep my own sandbox, and I like the challenge of writing in the main one. XD --Malkinann (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I say place it at Nausicaä (fictional character). It will need a little cleanup, but since we can't do it with this version, we can do it once the actual article is made. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Go with it. I've been looking around Wikipedia for similar articles. There are quite a few, and none had as many references. Forget what I said earlier about "weight". In terms of lead pictures there are lots of nice bits of artwork floating around the web (scans from art books and the manga mostly), but we'd have trouble coming up with a good fair use rationale so I would suggest using a 220px version of this: Image:Nausicaa2cover.jpg Before you go live - and I hope you realise we'll probably want to tinker/add to it - could you amend the first two sentences? She is not really known as the "blue clad one", that's just part of a prophecy, and the second sentence should say simply: "Nausicaa is the Princess of the Valley of the Wind" (i.e. lose the Japanese bit - it's back to front if combined with the English bit). Final request: If you do have access to all these sources could you have a look at the manga article? It is based almost entirely on the manga itself so some additional independent sources would be good. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone live - please feel free to edit it as you see fit. I pinched the manga bits and bobs from earlier versions of the article at Princess Nausicaä. I wonder if we cleaned it up enough quickly it could be a candidate for DYK? -Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it for DYK. There's a note on your talk page about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Schweet! :D Thank you for your help! -Malkinann (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

About Nausicaä's Pet

I don't recall it's name, but the pet she recieves from Lord Yupa (sounds like she calls it a "Fox-Squirrel") also makes a brief apperance in another work, "Laputa: Castle In The Sky". In this movie, shortly after the two main characters reach Laputa, a family of them are seen jumping on and around a moss-covered robot (around 1:33 into the movie). Could someone perhaps write a section (maybe as Trivia) about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.65.105 (talk) 21:42 pm, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A sister comment may have to be made under the Laputa article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.65.105 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, per WP:TRIVIA. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 22:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Sea of Decay"

In the English dub of the film, the characters refer to the Sea of Decay as "The Toxic Jungle"; the phrase "Sea of Decay" is never used. Given that this is the English page, and the vast majority of the people who view it will have seen the English dub, should the article be changed to refer to it as "the Toxic Jungle"? AlexAH (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC) -Anonymous

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 22:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shia LaBeouf in this movie

The article states that this movie was released in 1984. But it also states that it has Shia as an actor, who wasn't born until 1986.

Which one of these is wrong? -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.233.106 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

He voiced a character in the English dub released by Disney. Neither is wrong. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Me 323

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)

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)

Review(s)

• ANN: Shelf Life BR release

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

Requested move

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)

---

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) → Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind – Relisted. 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)
      • (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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
• 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)
  • In both the manga and the anime, she is introduced and mentioned as "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" multiple times. That's why she is included there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

  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)

• 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)
  • The film is a legacy of the manga... Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • (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)
      • 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)
        • So you think the film has no environmentalist themes then? Are you sure? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
• Oppose. I agree with Wiki-Ed. --Crazy runner (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • How do you respond to criticisms of Wiki-Ed's position then? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. based off the manga considering that it was released before production of the film.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Primacy is determined by common usage, not by release order. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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 MythSearcher^talk 09:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No point to an argument about matters of faith. Reason is powerless. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment: my vague impression is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is intended to handle articles with mostly irrelevant yet same name, like rice. I can live with either way, but instead of moving, alternative is to make Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind a redirect to Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) (and change hatnote to Template:redirect). --Fukumoto (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this suggestion might go against naming conventions which suggest to avoid parenthetical dab whereever possible. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • Disagree, see vote below. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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

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)

"[...] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Themes

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)

References to use

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

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)

GA Review

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I meant to move the Reception section below Releases and its sub-sections. Never mind, I did it.

Final analysis

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)

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

Link & Copyright

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)

Other themes: Harry Harrison's Deathworld

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)

"Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"

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)

Is the film epic or not

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. 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)

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)

@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)

The article is very written though. Good work. --Ekvastra (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Typographical error?

"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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722051242/http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/06/22/best-anime-ranking/ to http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/06/22/best-anime-ranking/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213182537/http://www.viz.com/books/print/art-of-nausicaa-of-the-valley-of-the-wind-watercolor-impressions-volume-1/6769 to http://www.viz.com/books/print/art-of-nausicaa-of-the-valley-of-the-wind-watercolor-impressions-volume-1/6769

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)