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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Images

I'm not sure that I agree that this should have been split off. Since it has, what are the rules regarding images of pages within the books themseles? I can't find anything particularly helpful. Wiki-Ed 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've added a few. I don't think this article is in need of expansion and whoever put the tag on hasn't explained why they put it there, so I've taken it off. Wiki-Ed 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Periphery

If they call themselves "the Autonomous States of the Periphery," how is it that they're vassals of the Torumekian emperor? It seemed to me that they were drawn into the war because, as allies, they were obligated to back up his campaign. Tokidoki27 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's covered in the first few pages of the manga (page 24 in 7 volume version) where Yupa and Jihl are talking: "The chieftan of the valley of the wind must serve under the Torumekian emperor as a gunship pilot - so say the ancient treaties and we must obey them...". Allies don't serve, they co-operate. I agree that "vassals" might imply a more involved relationship than is clearly represented, but "allies" is certainly not the right word. Wiki-Ed 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

I think the plot summary is pretty badly written, and contains unreferenced interpretation. It should be cleared up. Wilderns 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on both counts. Wiki-Ed 09:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the plot summary is ok insofar as it goes, but it misses out a whole dimension of the story, namely the mystical elements. Nausicaa and some of the other characters have telepathic abilities, and we are continuously being told by various characters that she is the blue clad one and the apostle. The mystical and religious stuff, the spirits and visions, out of body experiences etc etc are an important part of the story, yet none of this is in the article. Samatarou 22:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The "mystical" elements of the story are not well fleshed out. One could assume the telepathic abilities and manifestations are another genetic mutation, but it is not explained, nor are the origins of the only-occasionally mentioned prophecies. I'll see if I can think of a way to write it in without disrupting the flow of the synopsis - synopsis being the key word. Wiki-Ed 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Publications, "right-to-left"

The print I have at hand is ISBN 0-929279-58-1 (for Vol.1) and I was assuming it is the one referenced in the article as "now out of print English editions", "a 7 volume "Graphic Novel" series". Is it not?

If it is, then I wonder why it is described as right-to-left format, since it sure look to me like left-to-right format. Maybe I'm not understanding the word "right-to-left"? --Fukumoto (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The print I have - the one listed and shown in the photo in the article - is ISBN 1-59116-408-7 (Volume 1). It was printed by Viz in Canada in February 2004 and is the "Editor's Choice" issue mentioned in the article under publications. It most definitely reads from right to left. Presumably you have a different (earlier) edition; the 2004 issue was (according to the article) the first to be printed this way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't 100% clear on this, but it says there have been three different Viz releases: an original, 7-volume-long release (no idea if it was actually flipped, but it wouldn't surprise me, considering Viz used to flip a lot of their stuff); a 4-volume "Perfect Collection" release (I've read the first volume, but can't remember if it was flipped); and the most recent 7-volume-long unflipped release, printed with dark brown ink, just like the original Japanese release (I've read this whole release, and it was definitely unflipped). The image in question (and the list of volume ISBNs/page counts) is of the seven volumes of the most recent release, but the exact statement in question refers to the original flipped release and the Perfect Collection release. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then, does everybody agree that the article should be rolled back to Revision as of 21:01, February 26, 2009 ?--Fukumoto (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, the article is mentioning an older edition then ISBN 1-59116-408-7, (The article listed this version and said the older version is flipped) so if the ISBN 0-929279-58-1 version is older, and is differently oriented, then it should be talking about that one. The problem is, can anyone tell me why do we need to mention about different versions flipping or not? Can't we just mention the ISBN and saying it is out of print? MythSearcher^talk 07:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In truth, the whole section needs to be rewritten and reformatted to use the same table format as e.g. List of Naruto manga volumes. I don't have a great deal of experience with series that have been rereleased like Nausicaa has (I completely redid List of Oh My Goddess! chapters, but have yet to get any new outside opinions on it), so I'm really not sure just what or how much information is desirable for each release. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I got the paragraphs mixed up. I think the article is fairly clear as-is and have restored the change User:Fukumoto made. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers in an improper place!

(First and foremost, I would like to beg your pardon for any English mistake I might have commited -- I am a Brazilian, Portuguese-speaking user, and it's sometimes difficult to write a lenghtier message in a language which isn't your native one.)

Having stopped by this page just to have an overview of a series I did not know, I have taken a look at the "characters" section. While passing my eye through the characters names, I have noticed, to my horror, that some of the descriptions contain serious spoilers about the fate of the characters they describe. It just messed with half of the fun I might have when I read the actual story. I believe this kind of revelation should be featured only at the "plot summary" section, and contained inside the "spoiler alert" block. Could anyone transfer these nocive information from the "Characters" section to the "Plot summary" one? I don't dare to do it, since i could face new spoilers and ruin my amusement enen more. Thank you for your attention. --Ivan Linares (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You may need to take a look at Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --Fukumoto (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is and is not a spoiler is a matter of personal interpretation, thus Wikipedia does not make any distinctions. An article on a work of fiction will contain plot information that some readers will consider "spoilers", especially in the plot synopsis and character description. This is part of providing a complete summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Whipping the article into shape

It's a complete shame that one of the absolute biggest and best mangas doesn't have a featured article. I've begun to fix the article according to WP:MOS-MANGA, with the aim to submit it for approval and hopefully, one day, featured article status.

The long lists of characters are moved to their own article (List of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind characters), which also needs fixing. There should be a summary of a handful of the most important characters in this article, like in Watchmen or Azumanga Daioh. I'll get on it later if noone else feels up to the task. HertzaHaeon (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with the plot synopsis whereas the proposed version contained a number of unreferenced assertions (e.g. Torumekian "domination" and Dorok technology). I've reverted it to the chronological account - any attempt to change a plot summary to fit a particular point of view is going to irritate editors who do not read the story the same way. Better to keep it straightforward and factual. Oh, and Industrial Revolution (~1700s) + millennium (1000 years) = 2700s. This is not contentious. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The plot synopsis at it is won't do, for a number of reasons:

Nausicaa's nature, destiny and personal journey must be written in to accurately convey how the story is actually written. This is almost completely glossed over—especially her connection to the SoC and being the Chosen One, which are instrumental to the story and character. It starts and ends with her and she influences a lot of what's happenign, much more than is suggested by the current synopsis. This has to be reflected.

The synopsis also has information about the various kingdoms and powers of the world baked into the story, which is unnecessary and confusing, and it stands better on its own. I seperated that information from the plot for that reason, and to work in some of the removed list of kingdoms.

That the Dorok gained their technology from the Crypt is hardly an assertion.

Just reverting the synposis back isn't very constructive. It clearly needs to be rewritten a bit, even if not as I suggested he first time. Considering that the article is merely Start-class, we're not going to lose any masterpieces rewriting it. I'll make a new attempt soon unless someone beats me to it. HertzaHaeon (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says the elements you describe must be written in? That's your take on the story. Different people read it in different ways. The current synopsis simply describes the setting and events as they happen without ascribing any particular POV significance to any given element. It strikes me as bizarre to suggest we should change the focus of an encylopedia article because one or two characters in a fictional work describe another character as being supernaturally significant or because you've read things into the story that aren't there (e.g. the Dorok might have regained certain technologies from the Crypt, but since many of them are already at large in the wider world following the Seven Days of Fire it is impossible to know which).

Another thing that you've done is remove the list of characters to make a separate article. People have tried this several times in the past, but since they are not notable they get deleted, meaning that information is lost.

If you have proposed changes then feel free to post them here for discussion first. Reverting your previous attempt was easier than slapping a load of citation-needed tags on the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nausicaa's connection to the SoC and her personality are instrumental to the story. It's not simply my own POV. Omitting major parts of a story because you think they're unimportant is a personal POV and isn't neutral. You wouldn't tell the story of Mononoke Hime without the story of Ashitaka's curse and San's relation with the wolves. Nausicaa's nature and destinity go well beyond the opinions of a few fictional characters. I can make a long list of quotes and scenes from the books for you, if you really need them. Otherwise, let's decide how to write these things in instead, shall we? They deserve at the very least a mention.

If you read the final confrontation in the crypt at Shuwa, it's clear that the crypt offers technology to the Dorok for playing their part. Nausicaa learns this when talking to the Master of the Garden and the King explains it down in the crypt. It's clearly stated in the books. Also, the Dorok capital is centered around the crypt. Some mention of their connection to it is necessary.

Putting characters in its own article is how many other articles have solved this. I've already given examples of good and featured articles. If it works for them, it works for this article as well. It's also completely in line with WP:MOS-MANGA. A character list for such a popular manga from someone like Miyazaki should easily be notable enough. I'll take it up with anyone who objects.

Fine, let's go through a revised synopsis in in here first. I'll post something to start from. HertzaHaeon (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to discuss. However, you can’t use quotes from the story to support an interpretation of the story – that’s original research. While on one hand I agree that it is a bit odd not to go in to too much depth about the main character’s role in the story, on the other hand there are things like her connections and personality which are very much open to interpretation. For example you said that she loves all living things, but you have to admit she does kill quite a lot of living things during the course of the story. So, while one of the characters probably says something like “she has an affinity for all living things” one could question whether her actions speak louder than his words. Therefore we have to rely on secondary sources and while there is a fully verified article on Nausicaä (character) herself, I’m not sure how much of that is applicable to a plot synopsis. The more you say the more difficult it is to support unless you have a wealth of secondary sources discussing the story.

On Dorok technology – yes the crypt provides technology, but it is not clear how much of the technology comes from the crypt. Do they get their guns and airships from the crypt? If so, who gave these to the Torumekians and Periphery States? Does Miralupa get his telepathy from the crypt? If so, how did Nausicaa or Chikuku or Selm get the same gifts? We don't know and cannot speculate.

On the issue of the other characters, notability means they have to have independent verification (i.e. the citations for the article must exist outside the product). I think you might have trouble defending that, but we shall see. We can always bring them back here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that Nausicaa loves all living things isn't a good way to express her personality, no. It was four words that can easily be replaced with a better, objective way to describe it. But to write something like that she has a special connection to the Ohmu can't in any way be an interpretation. I can point to a number of events (not simply quotes) in the books where she unambigously interacts intelligently with the Ohmu in a way that has strong influence on the story. It's not imagined or second hand information. We should quite easily be able to build a better story and plot description based on such information.

I'm not saying we should speculate exactly what technology comes out of the crypt. It's enough to say that some does, because it's actually what happens in the story. There's no need to be more specific than the story, unless we find something like a Miyazaki quote that makes it relevant and possible to write in.

I've seen plenty of character articles that are like this one, for mangas that are arguably from less famous mangaka. Also, it's suggested in WP:MOS-MANGA. It seems like anyone who wants the Nausicaa list removed would have to disregard those two facts. HertzaHaeon (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes okay. I understand the point you're making - I was being picky about some of the wording you had used because I felt it suggested things that were open to interpretation. I'm afraid I wrote the existing summary so I'm not going to be able to suggest anywhere where I think things could be changed - I think it's quite succinct as it is, but I'm happy to proof-read proposed insertions/amendments. On the character page: I am just saying that there are some rather hardcore deletionist editors who don't care about the existence of other similar articles or an MoS (which is not policy). Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've finally begun working on a rewrite of the synopsis below. Let's work on it there before moving it into the article. Here are some of the points that I think are important and tha I've tried to address:

• Real-world perspective
• Keeping world description and plot seperate for clarity, as is done in many other similar articles.
• Clarifying the Dorok connection to the Crypt and the technology they get from it, without being specific (i.e. "a number of ancient technologies..." - which is evident in the final showdown in the Crypt)
• Mentioning Nausicäa's connection to the SoC and the Ohmu (explicitly stated by the Ohmu themselves in the books).
• Mentioning Nausicäa being seen as a prophet by the people, stating it as a religious idea importan to he story but not objective fact. This is important for Nausicäaa's help to bring about peace at the end.

HertzaHaeon (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new synopsis

The story is set in the future, 1000 years after the “Seven Days of Fire”, a cataclysm brought on by the excessive industrialisation that mankind has undergone. It destroyed industrial civilisation approximately a millennium after it began to flourish. Although humanity survived, Earth has become heavily polluted. Most of the world is covered by the “Sea of Corruption”, a toxic forest of fungal plants which is steadily encroaching on the remaining open land. It is protected by large insects, including the colossal, intelligent Ohmu. Humanity clings on to survival in the polluted lands beyond the forest, periodically engaging in bouts of internecine fighting for the scarce resources that remain.

One of the major powers in the world of Nausicäa is Torumekia, a feudal, militaristic empire, ruled by a corrupt, infighting imperial family and aristocracy. The Dorok is the other great power, a theocratic empire ruled by a Holy Emperor and a council of priests, and composed of a loose union of 51 tribal principalities. In the Dorok capital of Shuwa lies a crypt where the technologies of the old world are preserved. The Dorok have been given a number of ancient technologies from the crypt, among them the power to manipulate of life. The Periphery Kingdoms are made up of a number of small city-states that in return for their autonomy are vassals to Torumekia and must provide the Empire with troops for their war. The kingdoms of the Periphery are the remains of Eftal, a once mighty kingdom that was destroyed 300 years before the story of Nausicäa starts by a sudden spread of the Sea of Corruption. Living on the fringes of the poisonous forest are the Worm Handler tribes, hunters and scavengers that tame slug-worms and are considered outcasts. Deep in the Sea of Corruption lives the mysterious Forest People, in complete harmony with the otherwise hostile insects of the forest.

Plot

Nausicaä is the princess of the Valley of the Wind, a small kingdom on the periphery. The leaders of the periphery states are forced into war when the Torumekian emperor decides to invade the neighboring lands of the Dorok empire. Nausicäa decides to go in place of her aging father, the king, along with a handful of her companions. Her special connection to the plants and insects of the Sea of Corruption has lead her to uncover that it's actually slowly purifying the polluted lands. She senses that she can discover its ultimate destiny before it engulfs all of humankind.

It quickly becomes apparent that the Doroks have found a way to manipulate life and use creatures from the Sea of Corruption as weapons of war. Nausicäa fears it will not only cause horrible bloodshed, but also cause the Sea of Corruption to strike back against humanity, as it has before. Following the advance of the Torumekian princess Kushana, she endures the horrors of war to learn that she is the object of a prophecy among the Dorok tribes—a Chosen One will save them and bring peace.

The Torumekians have a strong conventional military, but in the Dorok arsenal is a genetically modified mould from the Sea of Corruption. When introduce into battle, the mould mutates and spreads beyond control, resulting in a "daikaisho"—an unstoppable flood that devours everything in its way, poisoning large areas of the Dorok lands. The mutant mould draws the giant insects into the war, spreading the Sea of Corruption as they advance. Many people, Dorok and Torumekian, military and civilians, are killed or become refugees. The Ohmu and other forest insects ultimately sacrifice themselves to pacify the rampant mould. Nausicäa's connection to the intelligent Ohmu fills her with despair and she lets herself by swallowed by the mould to become a part of the new Sea of Corruption that sprouts from it.

The Ohmu save Nausicäa's life as they die, however. The mysterious Forest People, who share her connection to the Sea of Corruption, arrive to show her that the forest, once it has cleared all pollution, gives way to restored land full of life. Nausicäa, strengthened by this knowledge, confront the remaining armies and their leaders to stop the bloodshed. With the help of her companions, she manages to bring about peace among the survivors. She then sets out for the source of the ancient technologies that spawned the daikaisho, hidden in the crypt in the Dorok capital of Shuwa. On the way, Nausicäa confronts the Dorok emperor and awakens his ultimate weapon—a biomechanical, humanoid war machine from the old world, known as a God Warrior. Nausicäa manages to communicate with the God-Warrior, who instead of unleashing the destruction it was designed for, accepts her as its mother and takes her to Shuwa.

Despite the loss of some of her companions, Nausicaä is eventually able to reach Shuwa and enters the Crypt, a giant monolithic construct from before the Seven Days of Fire. She learns that the last scientists of the industrial era had foreseen the end of their civilisation. They created the mould and the Sea of Corruption to clean the land, altered human genes to cope with the pollution, stored their own personalities inside the Crypt, and waited for the day when they could re-emerge. However, their continual manipulation of the population is at odds with Nausicaä's belief in the natural order and has led to the cycles of violence which have plagued the world for a thousand years. She asks the God-Warrior to destroy its progenitors' legacy, giving humanity the opportunity to live or die without the benefit of the old society's technology.

Coverage

• ANN: Jason Thompson

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Nausicaa2p121.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nausicaa2p121.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Publications

There must also be a publication in probably over 20 volumes. At least I saw something like that on ebay by "Viz Select Comics" 139.18.183.181 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is! Before the seven-volume "Graphic Novel" edition and the four-volume "Perfect Collection" edition, Viz published a twenty-seven issue series at the standard U.S. comic book size. I added it to the article earlier today. The first issue of that series included a pull-out poster by the French illustrator Moebius. The whole series is a "flipped" edition, but it would still be a nice addition to any Nausicaä collection. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this edition is not currently mentioned explicitly in the summary of English publications in the Media Section. I don't know much about the English editions and I don't know if this is the proper way to do this but there appears to be an editing lull and rather than post this draft in the article to see it reverted within minutes I'm posting it here for review first. Please delete if this is inappropriate use of this Talk page, go ahead and edit the draft for prose / clarity / compliance with formatting policies or post proposals for improvement below. For the time being I've taken out the references but essentially this is no more than writing out the information about English editions from the "around the world" list found on the Nausicaä net website. Can the draft text -with the reference links added- be used temporarily in the article - until serious editing continues?

Draft:

English translations are published by Viz Media. As of 2013 Viz Media has released the manga in five different formats. Initially the manga was printed flipped and with English translations of the sound effects. Publication of English editions began in 1988 with the release of episodes from the story under the title "Nausicaä of the Valley of Wind" in the "Viz Select Comics" series. This series ran until 1996. It consists of 27 issues. In October 1990 Viz Media also started publishing the manga as "Viz Graphic Novel Nausicaä of the Valley of Wind. The last of the seven Graphic Novels in this series appeared in January 1997. Viz media reprinted the manga in four volumes titled, "Nausicaä of the Valley of Wind: Perfect Collection", which were released from October 1995 to October 1997. A box set of the four volumes was later released in January 2000. In 2004 Viz Media re-released the seven-volume format in an "Editors Choice" edition titled Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind'. In this version the manga is left unflipped and the sound effects are left untranslated. Viz Media released its own deluxe two-volume box set on November 6th, 2012. Details about the Editor's choice edition and the two volume Viz Deluxe Box Set are provided in the table below.</end Draft.

About the table. I've had a look at a few other articles in which a similar table is used with a side by side listing of published Japanese / English volumes. If at all, how does the Viz Select Comics series fit into such a table? Is it considered a form of serialisation and therefore not necessary to include it in a table of collections? What about the Viz Graphic Novel and the Perfect Collection editions? Don't they take precedence based on chronology. If not, shouldn't a reader be informed why they aren't included in the table? A table which now lists considerably later release dates for English editions than the text - without explanation or indeed without clicking links- no indication which Version of the series it includes. (This is not a remark about the issue of listing the second edition of the Editor's choice. The sourcing issue for the first edition of the Editor's choice is mentioned in exchanges about Japanese Publications on this Talk page below.) Is it correct that the differences between these 5 English versions are not in the story itself except for those related to translation "strategies"? Are the main differences in the way the original 59 chapters were divided into different volumes, differences in the size of the various publication formats and in the illustrations used on the respective covers? For a medium that relies on illustration as well as on text to present its narrative - and a manga series creator who revised artwork in the panels between the serialisation and publication of collections - who has also commented about cover illustrations - it may be useful to remark on these illustrations and size differences - either in the Media > Manga section of the article or in footnotes for each edition mentioned in that section. Which of the English Editions is hard cover and which is Softcover? Can someone add that to the draft above? Wikipedia was one of the places where I started looking for this sort of information about a month ago when I heard about the release of the 2 Volume Deluxe English Box set. As a new editor of this article who is only ever going to make relatively minor edits to the article myself -I'm sorry to prod - but this all seems like very basic information and after several years of existence of this article there doesn't appear to be any agreement on how exactly to present it. 58.183.202.251 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The following Edit summary has me worried a bit, quote: 08:39, 10 November 2013‎ Lucia Black (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,742 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎Manga: some simplifying but the rest may need additional verification). I reverted, quote: 11:53, 10 November 2013‎ 58.183.206.46 (talk)‎ . . (32,954 bytes) (+68)‎ . . (→‎Manga: Removed oversimplification that resulted in the deletion of pertinent information.) Lucia Black, there is an issue with grammar to consider again as well but I'd like you to explain here, on this talk page, what your intentions are for the part of the article related to the earliest English language editions published by Viz Media. I'd like you to explain before you carry out any more rewrites -and especially deletions- in that part of the article itself. The material is referenced from a site you've used yourself in other parts of the article. What specifically requires additional verification? In the section "Japanese Publications" below you left comments regarding the English editions on December 31, 2012 and January 1, 2013 but after January 10, 2013 you didn't offer any input on the draft proposal above - which I subsequently added to the article. I'd like you to elaborate on your ideas before you launch into substantial rewrites and deletions. Personally I'm in favour of preserving the current detail and I'd prefer to expand on rather than delete from the information offered in the current article. I once again invite feedback from other editors. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin of manga?

Hi! I'm a bit surprised noone yet has sorted out the reason behind the manga. In the article, two conflicting scenarios are presented - one with the manga as a continuation of a refused/aborted film project, the other with the film as the direct result of the manga project. Am I alone in thinking these world-views can be united? Nausicaa.net FAQ about the film mentions "At first, Miyazaki did not want to make "Nausicaä" into anime, since he wrote the manga to express something he couldn't express with animation, and since the manga was still at an introductory stage." Helen McCarthy goes further in her book "Hayao Miyazaki - Master of Japanese Animation", noting what Miyazaki said in the Animerica interview from 1993 and goes on mentioning those two film projects Miyazaki presented to Tokuma in 1981 (both refused), where one of them instead got accepted by Animage magazine as a manga project ("Nausicaä..."). With the express condition from Miyazaki that his manga project (which he wanted free reins on) would not form the base for a future film.

That last sentence, is that an urban legend, or something McCarthy got wrong? If not, I see clear possibilities of the history behind the manga and film being harmonised.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and since no one has challenged your proposal or McCarthy's book on which it is based in part I've rewritten the article to reflect this. Welcome suggestions and corrections. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanese publications.

Note to editors. Either delete the text about a particular publication as well as its associated reference or edit the text about that publication to make it fit the article but don't associate a specific reference -now orphaned by the deletion of text - with a completely different publication. If you decide to delete the text about that particular publication again, please, remove the reference with it too. The two tankobon are completely different items than the 7 volume box sets. The two tankobon are in turn completely different publications than the two bunkobon with storyboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.202.251 (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a slight typo. Its fixed now. Please also note to use "sources" and wikipedia cannot be a source.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the two volume release labeled Jokan and Gekan are also in Bunko format just like the other two books with storyboards. If its hard cover its not tankobon.Lucia Black (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The publisher's Japanese website list the two A4 sized, hardcover books as tankobon (単行本). It is right there on the linked page in the provided reference. You linked to the two story board bunkobon volumes and made a direct unsourced connection with the Viz publications, which differ in many aspects with the Japanese editions, not the least of which is size.

You've now also removed the text related to the first edition of the Japanese 7 volume box set and its date of publication again although the Japanese Wikipedia page references both volumes with their respective ISBN numbers and date of publication. If the Japanese wiki cannot be used as a reference can't the ISBN numbers on that page suffice? Please, revise the text if needed but put the information about that first, now out of print, edition back in but, if you're not satisfied with the reference provided, add a more appropriate citation or a append a citation needed tag while I look for one acceptable for such an English language Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.202.251 (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I never removed the original out of print version. In fact there was no list of the original out of print version. When i began editing this article, it only had the editors choice.. But at the same time research takes time. Also note that Bunkoban and bunkobon are different as oneBunkoban is reffered to as "Tankobon in Bunkobon" while the other isnt. But i guess ill be technical about it and leave it as "tankobon". Regardless they both share the same characteristics, only one is released in box set. Their both still hard cover deluxe editions and separated into two volumes. But ill look into it. For now ill reword it so that it doesnt make that assumption.

Its better off not adding anything until you find a reliable "third" or "first" party source such as Tokuma Shoten site or any third party source that fits the criteria. What you add arent sources, only mentioning that it exist but not really using it well. Also wikipedia cant be used as a source if wikipedia itself is looking for reliable sources. Thats why we dont use encyclopedia sections of Anime News Network, because their used from first party sources that we might aswell use. If youre just going to do the same mistakes when it comes to sources, youre better off not adding. Theres no point in tagging them.

I'll look into the old out of print list. Also only reason why i didnt remove the 1st edition of volume one is because i may find a way to search it in a source. The list itself is to have the original release but sometimes through certain exceptions can be done if the standard edition differs greatly. Once the prose is concrete, we will have to decide which version we choose.Lucia Black (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I currently cannot find an archive site of viz's product page back when the edited and perfect collection was in print. My method of searching may be flawed so ill continue to look for another way but atm we're stuck with the "Editor's choice" editions (2nd edition) in the table.Lucia Black (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to: "I never removed the original out of print version..." My comment to which you replied was regarding the first version of the Japanese 7 Volume box set, published August 25, 2002 (ISBN 978-4192100021). As opposed to ISBN 978-4192100106 for the subsequent release on October 31, 2003.

I have removed most of my own edits. The ones that are accurate but improperly sourced for Wikipedia rules as well as the others. The comment about 1984 being Nausicaa year that you reverted came directly from the cover of my Animage magazine itself, for example, and is my own "original research" per the use of such term on Wikipedia - That part does not come from the linked Animage website. The other parts are my own interpretation and translation as well so even though the text is reflected in the linked Animage website page I added as reference I took that entire paragraph out as well. I took most of my own edits out entirely to facilitate starting over.

Publication and release dates are currently different in the main text of the aricle and in the table as well. 1995,1, 15 is the date of the Japanese first edition of volume 7 as printed on its own dust cover. 1994/12/ 10 is the date as posted on the publisher's website. Publication date first edition Volume 1. Showa 57, 9, 25 translation of the publication date as printed on its own back cover. No mention of this version on the website of the publisher. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but apparently Wikipedia can't tolerate primary sources like that. etc.

The only edit I made which I didn't take out was the correction of the link for the 2 deluxe books. You know, the ones listed as tankobon on the publisher's website.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.202.251 (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines / policies and I hope you will come back to clarify the way you interpret and try to implement them here.

"Definition of source:

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book),

the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),

and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the :subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

Policy: " ... primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia ... "

So, starting over, one at a time. Considering purely the provided information and ignoring, for the time being, formatting of Wiki reference tags (omitted below), what exactly is wrong with the information below?

First Edition Volume 1: 宮崎駿 風の谷のナウシカ 昭和57年9月25日発行　アニメージュ増刊　編集人 尾形英夫 発行人 小金井道宏 発行所 徳間書店 東京 雑誌コード 01578-9

Where; 宮崎駿 and 風の谷のナウシカ are the name of the author and the title of the publication 昭和57年9月25日発行 is date of publication - can be re-writen as published September 25, 1982 - アニメージュ増刊 is the publication in which the first 8 chapters first appeared as a collection 尾形英夫 and 小金井道宏 are the editors / publishers / consulatants for 徳間書店 the publication company of this first edition 東京 is the place of publication 雑誌コード 01578-9 is the classification / magazine code of the publication in use at the time and 1982 is the year of publication.

Explain to me why this information can not be used in the text, table or footnotes for this article - with appropriate tags for the reference section? If it doesn't qualify, can you explain to me why it does not qualify as source per the criteria set out in Wikipedia guidelines and policy? Used by themselves, with caution, in lieu of or pending a secondary source, I see no objection in the Wikipedia guidelines against using text -properly quoted and attributed- from a title page and/or cover of a properly published book from a reliable company as a source for its publication history and date of first release. (Note, the page for Volume 1 on the Tokuma Shoten website at the link currently used in the references does not include a publication date for that volume, so essentially there is currently no source for the information in the article per the rules as you seem to want to implement them.) While a secondary source is preferable according to the guidelines / policy I don't see how the information about Volume 1 provided above runs afoul of the verifiability rules and I'd like to see the information above included in the article in some form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.202.251 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of the first volume is proven by itself. If another work mentioned this first cover or the creator himself noted it, it would be different. But you cant say "First edition exist" and the source itself is the first edition.Lucia Black (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an English translation of 風の谷のナウシカ―宮崎駿水彩画集 (Water colour impressions). That translation should have a publication table with the date of the first edition of Volume 1 アニメージュ増刊 as September 25, 1982. If you have a page number from that, you have a source in the language of this English Wikipedia article while the original Japanese publication data from the cover can be appended in a note. Problem solved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.202.251 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a monochrome photo of the version with 新装版 1 printed on the dust cover in the 1984.4 issue of Animage magazine, on page 186. Is that illustration sufficient confirmation that this version exists as well? I made a typo in my original note with the now deleted reference for earlier editions of Volume 1 but the data from the dust cover of the eight edition, printed May, 25, 1984 can be transcribed and added as a note with that Animage reference. The eight edition has that New Edition text on the front of the dustcover with an illustrated announcement for the film on the inside flap. There is no prohibition against using properly published primary sources as references but it seems to me that the Animage magazine is a proper additional source as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.202.251 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thats more acceptable.Lucia Black (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok then. Do you - or anyone else reading along- have the page number for that publication table in the English "Watercolour Impressions" book so that the information can be entered in the article again with that reference? That way an English language source can be given. Otherwise I suggest entering the dates from the table on page 206 of the Japanese 宮崎駿水彩画集 and providing that as a reference. Both for the publication dates of all 7 volumes and for the different versions of Volume 1, which are mentioned in a footnote with that table/list at the bottom on the same page. The cover of Volume 1 is also mentioned on pages 12, next to the un-cropped image used for the cover illustration (page 13). Please also note that Volume 1 is mentioned twice in that table on page 206 in the watercolours book, pretty much the same way I did when I revised the table in the article the first time. One of my edits you objected to and I subsequently removed, but, since it can be referenced with a secondary source that you find acceptable I'd like to revise the table again the way I did it before but now with the watercolour book and Animage 1984.4 as additional sources. Seems to me the only issue remaining is the syntax of the reference to be used for this info. 58.183.202.251 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

... There is some info about the Engish Watercolor Impressions book online and although the page number is the same as the Japanese 宮崎駿水彩画集 there is a typo in the translation of that release history table. It says the re-release of Volume 1 and the first edition of Volume 2 were published August 24, 1983 but the correct date - per the covers and the Japanese Watercolours book - is August 25, 1983. So I guess the English edition should be used with caution. Would it be better to use the Japanese 宮崎駿水彩画集 / watercolours as reference in such a case? Would it be original research to mention the translation typo in some note with the article? How are you getting along with finding sources for the English Viz media editions? I read that it is better not to link sales pages as source on Wikipedia. Does that apply only to independent retail stores/online sellers or does that also apply to the online store page of the original publisher (Tokuma) and the publisher of translations (Viz) as well? 58.183.202.251 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a typo or maybe the official release from the actual release differ. Sometimes the street date and the book date differ. As for progress of 1st editions has halted for a short time as i cannot find any thing from their catalog. When it comes to citing release dates, retail sites are acceptable but it is preferred to use the catalog of the primary publisher.Lucia Black (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In the case of August 24 vs August 25 I really think it is a typo in the translation since the original Japanese edition of Watercolors has the exact same table with the same date as the date on the covers. August 25, 1983. It is the date in the English translation of the table that differs. Your point about street date/book date is taken though. That's where the mentions of July 1983 issue dates came from but they aren't sourced this way.58.183.202.251 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to re-enter the info about the first edition of Volume 1, published September 25, 1982, and use 宮崎駿水彩画集 as the reference. With the reftage= tag for references to the same source in the same article. But then hit another snag. The first mention of this watercolor impressions book in this article occurs as a reference from the French edition (Hayao Miyazaki , Nausicaä de la vallée du vent : Recueil d'aquarelles par Hayao Miyazaki) in the Development section - used as a source for the origins of the Nausicaa name in other Wikipedia articles as well. That part of the text mentions "Yataka Kobayashi" as the translator of Bernard Evslin's book 「ギリシア神話小事典」which was an inspiration for Miyazaki Hayao. The Japanese spelling of the translator's name is 小林稔. Online English sources for Evslin's book list his name as Kobayashi Minoru and so does the English translation of Watercolor impressions. Seems like another typo in a translation so how to deal with this on Wikipedia? I could replace the reference for the French edition with the Japanese version, but if I do so, how do I source or reconcile transliteration/pronunciation differences between the translator's name in the text of the French and English editions of "watercolor Impressions" when adding the translator's name in the article? Do the discrepancies warrant a mention in this article or its footnotes, since the first name written as Yataka is used on various Nausicaa related websites? If I add it as a note would that be "original research". 58.183.202.251 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added some of the information addressed above to the article with some text edits. I've also altered the table. Basic rationale. The two different versions of Volume One were each assigned their own magazine codes. I don't think it is appropriate to mix release dates and such codes or later assigned ISBN numbers.58.183.202.251 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be so complicated but while checking published translations to edit and expand the Development section of the article a similar issue as with the translator's name pops up for the name of Mr. Suzuki. Not yet the producer of Ghibli during the time period covered in the Development section, since Studio Ghibli didn't exist yet- but that's not the main point. How to deal with errors in translated publications? Is it original research to point those out or is what I did with the note for the translator acceptable? On page 32 in the Japanese Watercolors the last and the first name of Mr. Suzuki are given as , so Mr. Miyazaki is definitely speaking about that same man, clearly Suzuki Toshio, but in the English translation, Watercolor Impressions page 32, his first name is given as Shigeo. Is the discrepancy (foot)note worthy?58.183.202.251 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, itcould be referring to someone else, but if its not, then maybe it should just be ignored. unless the source that mistranslates the name is being used directly in the article, then i think it could be mentioned.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your feedback. In this case there isn't any doubt about the identity. In the relevant part of the text on page 32 is, quote: , which is translated as, quote: I decided it was a failure, and was going to toss it out, but the editor of Animage at the time, Suzuki-san, (Suzuki Shigeo, currently a producer at Studio Ghibli) [...] on page 32 in Watercolor Impressions. The only real difference there is in the transliteration of Mr. Suzuki's first name. The person referred to has his own Wikipedia article here: Toshio_Suzuki_(producer) The book and its English translation are convenient sources for background as recounted by Mr. Miyazaki and it seems likely they'll continue to be used throughout the article as references. 58.183.202.251 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe better here. Table from page 206 Japanese Watercolors for reference:

コミックス単行本発歴

• 1 "‘82年 9月 25日 初版 発行 アニメージュ増刊 「風の谷のナウシカ」※"
• 1 "‘83年 8月 25日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 1」"
• 2 "‘83年 8月 25日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 2」"
• 3 "‘84年 12月 15日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 3」"
• 4 "‘87年 5月 1日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 4」"
• 5 "‘91年 6月 30日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 5」"
• 6 "’93年 12月 20日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 6」"
• 7 "‘95年 1 月 15日 初版 発行 アニメージュコミックス　ワイド判　「風の谷のナウシカ 7」"

Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover dates:

• 1 昭和57年9月25日発行
• 1 昭和58年8月25日発行
• 2 昭和58年8月25日発行
• 3 昭和60年1月20日発行
• 4 昭和62年5月1日発行
• 5 平成3年6月30日発行

(Inside flap):

• 6 1993年12月20日初版発行
• 7 1995年1月15日初版発行

As printed on the books. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dating format

The date format was recently changed from mm-dd-yyyy to dd-mm-yyyy, but this is generally against guidelines. Specically, WP:DATERET. In the case of this article, the mm-dd-yyyy format originated from this edit last year, as full dates were not used anywhere else in the article until that point. DATERET states, "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used", so it shouldn't be changed into dd-mm-yyyy unless there is consensus to do so. I would also like to point out that {{use dmy dates}} was arbitrarily added in this edit back in January 2011, but as mentioned, full dates were not used in the article's body until November 2012.--十八 06:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

But wouldn't it depend on references and whats in the prose/tables? i mean its easier to portray dates in a certain way in prose, but refs can be allowed to be technical. but thats just my opinoin. if you feel strongly about it, we could reformat all dates in refs.Lucia Black (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

While removing some of my own improperly dated entries I unified the other dates in the article twice. First to the format you prefer. Afterwards I did the reversal by script to make it comply with the 2011 dmy guidance at the bottom of the table. Can that dmy guidance be removed to avoid future confusion? This comment was added to explain, not to disagree. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to argue, just want to know what to use from now on and to make some minor corrections in the dates in the article and references. Who is considered the first major contributor? Does the current article comply with the first major contributor's style for dates? On 11 October 2006 the following reference was added to the article: "First of Two-part Miyazaki Feature". Animerica 1 (5): 4. July 1993. Which is funny enough how that particular reference appears again in the current article. As far as I could tell it is the only date that doesn't match the other dates in the right now although it is possibly the oldest full date reference that survives in the article to this day. (Could it be that the editor who placed the guidance at the bottom of the article relied on it?) My objective was for the dates to be unified/consistent and as precise as possible throughout the article. Same as with the style of links and citation references throughout the article. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That reference doesn't use a full date; that '4' is the page number. And Lucia is the first major contributor to supply a full date in the body of the article, so I think that is the format it should be per the guideline above. As I said, the use dym template was added arbitrarily, and there was no real reason to put it in the article back in 2011; the user who added it only edited the article once before back in 2006. I honestly don't know why he added it.--十八 10:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Misread the reference for part of the date. Glad I didn't edit it, A final observation and a question. You wrote that the decision, by Rich Farmbrough, to insert the date style guidance was arbitrary and that he did so without prior discussion but he nevertheless inserted it. Wouldn't it be up to the next editor of a page with such a guidance to figure out why it was inserted by starting a topic on the Talk page and discussing the matter before making revisions contrary to such a guidance? The next editor to use a date didn't discuss the matter prior to overriding that guidance either. How do these precedents work? Just trying to figure out how this works for the future as well. Is it customary to discuss which dating style to use prior to starting a new article, for example? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

To be absolutely really clear - this isn't meant to be contrarian. As you can see I made the first set of date edits by hand yesterday and would have been quite happy to leave all of them mmmm dd , yyyy. I actually had to go figure out how to install and run the script I had never seen before. The only reason I did that script run at the end was because that guidance was there. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be back again but what about the following reference? Hayao Miyazaki , Nausicaä de la vallée du vent : Recueil d'aquarelles par Hayao Miyazaki, Glénat "Ghibli / NAUSICAÄ , 9 November 2006, pp. 150 ISBN 2-7234-5180-1 (French) that was entered by Malkinann in June 2010 : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nausicaä_of_the_Valley_of_the_Wind_(manga)&diff=prev&oldid=370167809 It was entered by an editor who contributed quite a bit to the article and the citation has remained in the article. It was present when Lucia started editing it. As was this entry also dated in a different style: Ryan, Scott. "Chapter guide". Nausicaa.net. Team Ghiblink. Retrieved 2008-12-30.

Lucia, you asked about the dating style for references and in that context I don't want to sound judgmental either but when you started editing you also used dates like this Retrieved 11-16-12 which might cause confusion regarding the order of the day month and the year.

General comment, once more, The main reason for my edit was to unify and make the dates consistent throughout the article not because I favoured one style in this regard. I made the last edit complying with the guidance at the bottom. Which may have been inserted because there was no clarity or consistency about the dating in the article up to that point. If Malkinann came back to challenge the change, however, there might be grounds for making that argument and there might be yet another revert of the whole style. Unless I've mistaken another page number or overlooked something else. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is my view. As Lucia mentioned, the dates in prose and the dates in references don't necessarily have to be the same; it's really up to the editor whether they want consistency or not. For this reason, and since a ref is not technically part of the body of the article, I don't think it should be counted towards the full date argument. As for Rich, I don't see it as a "guidance" but more a stylistic preference by that editor, I assume. This article doesn't have any strong national ties to using the dd-mm-yyyy format, so there was no real reason to add in the template, especially when that editor just did a drive-by and only edited this article twice. Not to mention that the Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) article, and other Studio Ghibli films, use mm-dd-yyyy, so I think if nothing else, it should be consistent among any closely-related group of articles.--十八 22:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Those -and other articles- were among the reasons why I asked. Some of the hidden maintenance messages at the bottom of their edit pages also show there are some errors in the articles regarding dates and deprecated parameters in the inline citations - while still quite a few articles have the obsolete xxx parameters as well due to the publisher_other = format still existing in their info boxes - but I'd rather know what to expect when cleaning up some of those eventually than change things there and have other lengthy exchanges over the merits of such a moves erupt on each one of those Talk pages too. Not easy to figure out what is expected around here. Not really sure how I was supposed to know that the { {use dmy dates} } could safely be ignored and since no other editor had indicated why that tag was being ignored in the first place on the article's talk page I followed its guidance at the end of making all the dates md,y first.

Since Lucia had indicated that I could pick a style for the inline references after I asked her for her preferences because I intended to clean them up a bit I didn't see your revert from dmy to md,y coming, to be honest. As a result the obsolete xxx parameters which had already been removed popped back into the article and you had to manually restore some later edits to make it all work again. Something that could have been skipped by running the script one more time -but in the other direction- to make the article md,y without the necessity of a revert. As for the difference between article and references I do think, especially since in Japan the year is sometimes listed first, and since the content at least has ties with Japan and probably attracts visitors from Japan to this article it may be preferable not to use dates shortened like this 11-11-11 in either text body or references. To avoid confusion it may be best to write the full year and some agreed upon abbreviation of the months if opting for not spelling out the month in full has the preference in references. Does that sound reasonable?

Since it still isn't completely clear to me what will be used -particularly in the references- and because Lucia hasn't come back to comment yet, I'm inserting this summary:

• The dmy tag is inserted in January 2011. We don’t know why because the person who inserted it didn’t initiate a discussion about it on the article’s Talk page. You suggest he should have. He also doesn’t edit any dates to make them comply with the tag he just inserted. Some references with different dating styles persist in the article in spite of the tag. Both pre-existing dating styles in the references conform to the guidelines but aren't unified or consistent. No full dates in the main body of the text.
• Lucia starts editing. She ignores the tag and uses a different style. Doesn’t start a discussion why she picks a particular dating style. Doesn’t remove the tag from the article’s edit page either. And doesn’t edit the reference dates that already exist in the article to make all the dates one style from then on. It could have been any editor who could have done the same as Lucia because the tag is normally hidden and not very obvious.
• Other editors come along, including myself, and add their own variations for listing days months and years. The tag remains on the article and is only occasionally adhered to but mostly ignored or unnoticed.
• While I’m cleaning up references and deal with the pre-existing warnings about parameter errors -some of which I caused myself, others that had been there much longer- I’m left with two choices. I’ve already redone the dates in md, y but there is that tag. So I install and run the script. I understand that dates in references and in the article can be different but I don’t see in the guidelines that an existing dating style in the references can be ignored when deciding on the dating style for the rest of the article. The guideline isn’t clear on that for someone trying to figure out who is considered the first major contributor later. That in conjunction with the dmy tag resulted in my edit, reverted by Juhachi.
• So md,y will be used for the article. I don't think there is disagreement on that.
• What isn't clear to me yet is the style for references. 11-11-11 is too confusing. That is the style Lucia picked - but that is not an acceptable style according to the guidelines. Neither is 11-11-2011 according to the same guideline. If hyphened dates are used they should be written like 2011-11-11 according to the guideline. That is the style used in this reference: Ryan, Scott. "Chapter guide". Nausicaa.net. Team Ghiblink. Retrieved 2008-12-30. That reference was present before Lucia started editing.
• If some other contributor comes along later and starts adding dates in the 11-11-2011 or 2011-11-11 style but inserts dates assuming that the day comes before the month without checking what the dating style is for the article that will result in a misdating which isn’t easily detected. What is the preferred style with a clear distinction for the order of months days as well as years?
• The tag has been deleted so far without objection so that confusing element is already gone. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel you're making this more complicated than it is. You can see at WP:DATESNO what can be used everywhere, and what can only be used in references. Just use the same format throughout an article, references included; this is how I've done it for years, and no one's going to disagree with you about it. The only reason I reverted the date format change was because of WP:DATERET and the other reasons I explained.--十八 12:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Interruptions

(Manga section. Publication history, discussion of edits for content and prose. Added the first part of the discussion after the break as well.) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to make extensive details of the various interruptions and publication history part of the article we might as well be as detailed and accurate as we can. As noted before, the date of release of each Animage Magazine issue is on the 10th of the preceding month. March 1994 came out February 10, 1994. It is thus important to be mindful of that distinction throughout the section when dating an hiatus or event. It is for this reason that I noted that the final appearance is in the March 1994 issue not that the serialisation ran until March 1994. Furthermore the final panel is date 28 January 1994, it isn't redundant to note this. Please don't edit this information out again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.206.46 (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your claims are not supported by sources. The source only provides when he halted, how long he halted and when serialization began and resumed. It doesn't make the claims you are stating.Lucia Black (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is dated on the panel itself. Find a back up source if that doesn't satisfy you but don't delete accurate information. Edit for prose would have sufficed if you thought the sentence unclear. Lucia Black (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC) The preceding 09:33 comment, "it was dated on the panel itself etc" has been inaccurately attributed to Lucia Black. I wrote it before I registered my Verso.Sciolto account. 58.183.206.46 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a "back up" source. We just need a source in general and how can volume 1 cite the end of the serialization of the manga if we're talking about the end of the manga serialization. What you claim doesn't make sense, and you provided no source at all.

If. Accuracy is in question, (which it is) than you have to provide proof.Lucia Black (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiably dated on the panel. Have you even looked? Lucia Black (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.183.206.46 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on with this talk page. Here is the text of the comment as I just wanted to post it:

It is verifiably dated on the panel in every single publication of the manga in Japanese and in English - including but not limited to the March 1994 issue of Animage - which is what that section about serialisation is about and based on . Have you even looked? 58.183.206.46 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Animage Magazine, March 1994, page 204. Dated 1994.1.28 in the bottom left corner of the final panel.58.183.206.46 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Then add the reference! But worst of all, I don't think that specific information is related at ALL to the serialization of Nausicaa. Again the source that I provided IN THE ARTICLE provides the halts and continuation. But also, what you're saying is more on specific development. Its not related to serialization. It is also incredibly trivial. If you claim that every panel has a date that doesn't match the release date (which inevitably will happen) we will be getting a large ammount of dates about when the author "technically" finished each chapter in contrast to when it was released. So no, its not related to serialization.Lucia Black (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added the reference to the article. What you write in your last comment is not my claim. When the story was completed isn't any more or less trivial than the other dates in the article. If you don't like the way the article is currently written I ask again that you edit for prose or clarity but I also ask again that you do not delete a relevant, verifiable, date that was added for the information of the reader. I will revert such a deletion if you carry it out again.58.183.206.46 (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence about the final chapter has been rephrased slightly, a reference for the first, 1 month hiatus in the November 1982 issue, has been added and I have registered an account. You may have seen that I also reverted the section about the first English editions. I think the way I phrased it explains the English publication history and the initial usage of the title in English better than the edit you made. This comment was also written to note that I've registered a new account. Previous comments in this section with an IP starting with 58.183.xxx.xx were made by me. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Because all this informmation is more related to serialization. And that is irrelevant to whether the series ended at one point or not. For exmple: If a series is cancelled yet subsequent chapters are released, it doesn't matter. Serialization iis. Directly linked to magazines. They are not linked to when it technically finished.Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no harm in informing people when the last chapter of the saga was completed. Not in a small part of a sentence in a section about the publication history of the manga and not anywhere else in the article. That it took Miyazaki 12 years to complete this saga is noted and repeated throughout the article. When the final chapter was completed and when it was published are therefore both interesting and pertinent pieces of information for a reader of this article. I see no harm in including that info with a specific date in this "Media > Manga" section in this way but I also already indicated that you can edit for prose or clarity rather than delete. Since the completion date is printed in the Animage Magazine issue with the final chapter (AM 94.3) and since I noted that from the start by pointing out in the article that it is printed on the last panel, I don't even understand where your earlier confusion about the origin of the information came from. You say serialisation is about the magazine and I never stated nor implied otherwise. I ask again and would like you to reply this time. Had you even looked? When you wrote this, i.m.o., rather abrasive Edit summary for this page? Quote: (→‎Japanese publications.: you say, but you dont prove.). Verifiable doesn't necessarily mean online. I noted it was dated on the final panel in a section about serialisation. What did you think that referred to that you couldn't confirm the information yourself by simply taking that Animage magazine off the shelf and looking there first? You asked me, quote: "... how can volume 1 cite the end of the serialization of the manga if we're talking about the end of the manga serialization." I made no mention of volume 1 in this context. In the article I simply mentioned the final panel and the date January 28, 1994 all in a sentence about the final period of serialization and specifically noting the last magazine in which a chapter of the series appeared, the March 1994 issue of Animage. Where did your confusion come from?

Also. Was it meant to be constructive to delete and then label my contributions as follows in the Edit summary for the Article? Quote "(→‎Manga: odd clarifications. some uncited)". What is odd about providing a little additional information? What is odd about making the occasional distinction between a month and a monthly Animage Magazine issue? What is odd about substituting "when" for "where" in sentences you clearly wrote about time rather than place? You elaborated on the interruptions in serialisation and so did I. Frankly, I don't see what is odd about that. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you know proper english, it breaks the sentence and it doesn't convey the meaning right. Its confusing to state that the last panel dated on january, published on march. its easier to say serialization ended on march because thats the date it actually ended. yes, miyazaki finished srawing but its still considered part of serialization.Lucia Black (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why however? The final chapter was completed on January 28, 1994 and published in the March issue of Animage. Why do you need to state it as though that information suggests a conflict rather than what it is, merely a timeline - a sequence of events? "on March 1994" is furthermore clumsy. "On" suggests a specific date, not a month. I also don't understand why you are so obstinately refusing to acknowledge that there is a degree of accuracy that goes missing when it is phrased as ended "in/on March" when "published in the March issue of Animage" is not only clear but also more historically accurate? I suggest reverting to the way I phrased it but substituting "dated" for "completed". Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

indents added. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Because its ttoo long. I know you don't know english to know that it loses its meaning if we cite when it was "technically" ended over when it officially ended. When a movie gets released, do you cite he release date or the day it was technically finished?

Its not as sequential as you make it out to be. First of all, the paragraph is focused completely on "magazine" serialization. So when it shows that the series resumed. It may not have technically resumed then, he could've began drawing it out months before it resumed serialization. But that's the thing, part of If you think "in March 1994" that's fine, but its redundant to constantly bring up "Animage". The readers know because its written in the beginning. But I'm looking at this solely at a objective perspective and what "serialization" means, which is when its officially published. That's the difference. "Historically accurate" is just fancy words. The way its written now is just as accurate. And it separates from serialization history. Which is most of the paragraph is about (which makes sense to separate.Lucia Black (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It pains me to be back here again but I think I have to point out that your latest edit has turned the entry into your opinion by explicitly stating that the date "implies" something. Contrary to what you write in your latest comment on this talk page you have now inadvertently made the article subjective. When I entered the date from the last panel, that information was presented chronologically and in a neutral manner. I still prefer the way it was written, chronologically, before. It didn't replace a date but only entered an additional date and, no, I wouldn't see a need to delete a completion date from a film article if it was presented together with a release date. When I read an article about a film, or other creative work that interests me, it is the sort of information I look for. It adds precision without necessarily distracting from the other dates. If phrased the right way.

What follows next is somewhat besides the point but as it happens I also don't agree with your assessment of what the January 28, 1994 date on the last panel implies. There is a reason there were so many interruptions over the 12 year period of serialisation and it wasn't because Miyazaki completed the manga chapters months in advance of publication. On the contrary. His comments and the publication history indicate that he frequently worked on the story and artwork close to deadlines. His work method explains why the number of pages of the manga varies per Animage issue. It explains why there was sometimes an abrupt stop and why the missing panels were replaced by apologetic cartoons. etc. i.e. he was not done with his entry for that particular issue yet when the Magazine needed to go to print. It explains why even a single monthly issue of November 1982 was skipped. The dates of meetings indicate that only when the moment arrived when his creative efforts needed to be devoted to the creation of the film the manga chapters stopped (August issue 1983). That pattern repeats throughout. All this information can't be presented in this article, nor does any of this need to be fit into that last sentence of that paragraph - if anywhere at all, but it is is one of the reasons why I prefer that the dates are presented chronologically and close together there as well. It is one of the reasons why I favour the sentence construction "in the March 1994 issue of Animage" in the last sentence of that paragraph. It isn't an obtrusive repetition but a simple reminder to summarise and close that section while giving a bridge to other parts of the article. It is also a neutral way to date the entry and nevertheless give the information for the reader to think about the history of serialisation. The last panel is dated January 28, 1994. The Animage issue for March 1994 in which it was printed was published February 10, 1994. I still think you are unnecessarily presenting the simple insertion of an additional date as a conflict. Here and in the article. The sentence does not lose its meaning because of the inclusion of an additional date and let me reiterate once again that I am not suggesting that we replace the release date but simply that the date from the last panel is added just before that. Chronologically. That is all I did with the original edit. I've explained why I disagree with your assessment of what the date implies but you've voiced your opinion - that he could have worked in advance - and I stated why I disagree with that assessment and I hope you don't turn this into a discussion of that point. I hope you will think about it but it is besides the actual point. I have no intention of sticking all that into that paragraph or that sentence. The point is that the entry in the article is now your point of view and that wouldn't be correct even if I agreed with that particular opinion. Please consider an other rephrase. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your way of speaking is very odd, please consider learning more english, before clinging to the idea of chronological order is best. And if you believe "implies" is an opinion. Then we shouldn't even consider it a fact that it finished on that date simply because that date is noted on the final panel.

You have to realize that what you want is technicalities that don't exactly prove much. The source provided only shows halts of serialization by magazine, not by when he "technically" stopped. What you provided is a technicality. So chronologically speaking (there is multiple methods of "chronology"), we wouldn't have found out he finished early on until after the final chapter was released. Not by when he stopped drawing, and even then its still a big stretch. I'm disagreeing 100%. let it die. and think about it.Lucia Black (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Presenting a date with its source, as I did, without further commentary is neutral POV. It is simply information sourced from the work itself and identified as such. Not everything needs a reference tag to be considered sourced but I have added the source in a ref tag when you objected. In this case I merely entered an additional date entered by the author during serialisation, announcing The End (Owari). There is no reason why that can't be included in a Wikipedia article and no reason why that can't be presented in the section about Manga serialisation.

My criticism of your last article revision is a more general point. To write that a date implies something is an interpretation, a value judgment. That is not neutral POV but an opinion. In this case your opinion. Voicing your opinion isn't the purpose of the article. It doesn't follow that pointing out that you've inserted an opinion invalidates the data on which your opinion was based.

Let me remind you that my edit did no more than state it was dated... . I think my English is just fine but have also invited a rephrase. A rephrase that isn't an improvement, however, can be critiqued or replaced itself. The date is sourced and neither more nor less trivial than any of the other data entered in the article. I think mentioning that date adds something useful about the publication history of the manga. This was how I phrased it in my original edit, quote: "The series continued in March 1993 and ended with the final panel, dated 28 January 1994, published in the March 1994 issue of Animage magazine." You haven't improved on that formulation. It isn't all that complicated or long and it conveys interesting information. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't lie here. You wanted "dated" to be replaced with "completed" which was original research. Regardless, that specific date is unrelated to the others as they explain the multiple times the series was on hiatus. And even then there's no strong coverage. And if you really think about it, you want it to imply that it finished before it was published in a more obvious way. Me, I'm not here to make information look "interesting", but to present it in a easy to understand way. And what you want is for the date that btw was obtained by the chapter itself to oversee its publication date. I will NOT be discussing this further. I made the FINAL modification.Lucia Black (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a lie but I did suggest that as an alternative "dated" could be replaced with "completed" if that made the sentence clearer. I don't think that would have been out of line, based on おわり (owari, the end) on the panel and 完 (kan, completion) just below printed on page 204 of the 1994.3 Animage issue. The work itself can be a source. There is no restriction on using information from the work in Wiki articles. I'm also not implying anything. I put factually accurate information in the article without further commentary in the article. You nor I make final edits. That is the nature of this medium. Some other editor may come along and rewrite again. I think I've explained the situation as I see it carefully enough. The date is related to the publication history of the manga and therefore isn't out of place at that spot in the article. I'm not sure your rephrase is a great improvement over my original edit but I can live with the way it stands. Can you change the "On" March to "In" March, please. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Small edit and indents added. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I need to amend my position again because I just noticed that you have now deleted this: "The first chapter was printed in the February 1982 issue. The finale, chapter 59, was eventually published in the March 1994 issue of Animage." Why does that need to be deleted? It makes the publication history clearer. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For one, you need to learn to merely "present" information and not show it off in a superfluous manner. So saying "The finale, Chapter 59" just seems unnecessary. Also note that it is basically given to the reader. Two, you need to learn the word "redundant". The following covers when it began (first chapter) and when it ended enough.Lucia Black (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On January 12, 2013, editor MPS wrote the following in the article edit summary: "(→‎Manga: the February issue of Animage is published in January and the March issue in February)". That is correct. To be precise, on the 10th of each preceding month. By identifying the Magazine by issue -the way the article was subsequently re-written as a result- it gives it more precision. I don't think you should ignore that suggestion and delete otherwise harmless and accurate information, especially since it has been brought to your attention repeatedly. Have a look in Watercolor Impressions to see that Viz Media frequently employs the formulation "In the March issue of Animage" or similar. There is nothing wrong with it. Japanese publication do the same. I respectfully request that you revert your own edit and don't ignore input from other editors this way. I don't agree with your iea of redundant. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to what I removed. And edit summaries don't provide proof. And again, what it really all is, is just more technicalities. It doesn't change the fact that it ended on March, and even then the article doesn't claim to state which exact issue.

Redundant isn't an idea. Its a real issue. For example the song "Tonight I'm Going To Rock You Tonight. Having the word repeated in the same sentence is "redundant". AND the same applies to if it repeats multiple times in the same paragraph.

Learn to present information without unnecessary technicalities that can confuse editors. And I know presenting such unnecessary information will. And the only thing you're providing is 1st party sources, not 3rd party where they highlight the relevancy of it.

Enough. Keep it simple and easy understand. We're going by release dates, not month issue.Lucia Black (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't unrelated to the sentences you removed. I quoted them above and they deal with the same issue as MPS' edit summary. An edit summary indicates proof of an editor's intent and since the suggestion makes sense it was incorporated in the article. You are therefore ignoring the input from two editors. The desire to add precision to the article entries is what prompted the insertion of additional information. It didn't end "on [sic] March. That's the whole point. By writing things like "it was published in the March issue" doesn't make it any less clear and it actually makes the information more precise.

I know what the word redundant means, I don't agree with the way you interpret it to defend your deletions.

Also, can you please refrain from making personal suggestions about my character and abilities? I explain my positions carefully and reply to you in a civil manner. I don't need to be accused of lying. I don't need to be lectured by you for having poor language ability or lectured on "learning" the meaning of common English words such as superfluous or redundant. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My patience wears thin....no more technicalities. If you know the definition of redundant than analyse why this was redundant. I deleted information that "repeated". And worst of all, these technicalities don't inform nothing. And I know you know better than to claim it says it was released on march issue, it does not. It merely states that it ended serialization on march 1994. Tthe sake of compromise I left in the useless technicality that the final chapter is dated on january. And even more useless information such as it being the february issue.

I know you know better...so I'm not going to repeat how these are not issues but release dates. That's when the series ended, when it got "PUBLISHED".Lucia Black (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

... but It didn't end serialization "on [sic] March". The final chapter was printed in the March 1994 issue. It makes it more accurate to say it like that because the March issue was actually released on February 10, 1994. Why not take that into account when writing the article? "The first chapter was printed in the February 1982 issue. The finale, chapter 59, was eventually published in the March 1994 issue of Animage is an simple and elegant intro to that section by summarising what follows at the start. It gives the issue of publication accurately and informs of the number of chapters. The section is then then expanded with additional detail. There is nothing wrong with leaving it the way it was. To use the original sentence from my edit also summarises and thereby provide a nice transition of of the Animage section to the collection Volumes section. That's why I don't agree any of it was redundant. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the source. And do you have any idea how many technicalities that will enforce just to clear up the hiatus technically ended? We would need more sources. And not directly from the book.

That's the problem. As much as you claim its a nice transition. I have to find ways to clean it up. No "elegant". We need "straightforward". We shouldn't jazz up information. Its the last chapter, to say finale is subjective. But I'll find a simple "blunt" way to do it again. Out of compromise. But only if you drop it. As in be satisfied. Because I will not respond if you have another issue over the samee problem. Its time consuming. And I rather you drop it. I know what I'm doing.Lucia Black (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are not the only editor of this article and I reserve the right to continue to evaluate all your changes and will make up my mind whether or not any further commentary is warranted after you complete them. When this article was last reviewed it passed the information and prose tests in part due to my own edits as well. I think it is fair to say that many readers of the manga outside Japan have never seen an Animage issue and - mindful of the fact that a good Wikipedia article needs to be informative for both completely uninformed and more interested readers - I don't think my additions are as redundant as you repeatedly try to portray them. Right at the beginning of this most recent exchange I suggested that additional sources could be added rather than deleting the information, which I think is pertinent. What are you doubting this time and for what exactly do you need additional sources? There is no reason to alter anything about when the interruptions in serialization ended. What I'm saying is that from time to time the sentence "in the March issue" or "in the February issue" is used because the Magazine is actually released on the 10th of each preceding month. If you left it the way it was phrased it wouldn't actually need cleaning. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, quote: " to say finale is subjective.". Please review your own edits made on November 23, 2012, the word finale was introduced to the article with the insertion of the Table. It lists chapters 1 through 58 followed by the term "Finale", in the cell for Volume 7 (Chapters 47-58, Finale). The finale is the 59th chapter, based on material you wrote or posted in the article yourself there is nothing wrong with using that term in the introductory sentences for the Media > Manga section the way I did. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if your 10:07 edit of the Article is the final edit you had in mind but if it is I seriously question why you couldn't leave it similar to the way it was phrased in this version:

The manga was serialized in Tokuma Shoten's monthly Animage magazine between 1982 and 1994.[12] The first chapter was printed in the February 1982 issue. The finale, chapter 59, was eventually published in the March 1994 issue of Animage. The series ran from February 1982 to November 1982 when the first interruption occurred due to Miyazaki's work related trip to Europe.[13] Seriali[z]ation resumed in the December issue and the series ran again until June 1983 when it went on a longer hiatus due to Miyazaki's work on the film adaptation of the series. Serialization of the manga continued from August 1984 but halted again in May 1985 when Miyazaki placed the series on hiatus to work on Laputa. Serialization continued in the December 1986 issue and was halted again in June 1987 when Miyazaki placed the series on hiatus to work on the films: My Neighbor Totoro and Kiki's Delivery Service. The series continued in April 1990 and was halted in May 1991 when Miyazaki worked on Porco Rosso. The series continued in March 1993 and ended with the final chapter, dated 28 January 1994 on the last panel, published in the March 1994 issue of Animage magazine.(talk) 11:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Because, when you bring up stuff like that, we can't organize it the way we did back then. We have to distinctly say they are magazine issues, not dates. And i moved the information to Kiki's Delivery Service (novel). SO its not deleted. You have to think about the inconsistency of the previous version. which do you want? do you all dates? or mention that they are all magazine issues? choose. not both.Lucia Black (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you ever think that it might have been a good idea to consider why the existing sentences in the article were constructed that way, before you inserted the additional information about interruptions? If you had evaluated why the existing sentences were written like that, had adjusted your language to match them, while you were drafting to copy the data about hiatuses from Nausicaa net - i.e. before dropping it into the article - this process that you apparently find so annoying could have been avoided entirely. You’ve left my other edits in the paragraph alone, probably because you realise that they improve on your own choice of words and grammar. Do you think you are the only one frustrated by these protracted exchanges? Personally, I think I improved on the prose of your edit. Rather than acknowledging that you write an abrasive edit summary and start accusing me of not proving. In stead you could have checked first. I’ve asked you before why you don’t temporarily insert a citation needed tag or a place a comment on the talk pages if something you don’t know is inserted. That is what Wiki guidelines suggest you do rather than assuming it is wrong as a default and deleting it on first sight.

I also think the sentences which existed -before your insertion of details about hiatuses- made for a nice flowing and informative intro to the section about serialization just as the last sentence construction made a nice close of the paragraph about Animage and transition to the next paragraph about collection volumes. I have also already made my preference known for employing “in the February 1982 issue of Animage” ( ... and derivatives or equivalents of such a construction). The way you’ve altered the article is not an improvement, imo. Yes, you’ve added useful information but I don’t think your way of presenting it is very nice and I am getting tired of being treated like an enemy for pointing that out, exhaustively. Yes, you've adopted some of these suggestions but have done so, imo, with little imagination and creativity for the overall appearance. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not touched other comments because i am looking for sources as we speak and trying to verify them. But this could've been avoided if you didn't look for technicalities. period. i see you as someone who thinks they know best, but is having a hard time conveying his thoughts, and because of that it affects the article, and i remove it because i have a hard time understanding it. i literally had to reread it 5 times. And i removed it simply because there was no source provided.

This argument would've ended if you were quick to realize the true problem and why i removed it. The information is presented "bluntly" and "straight forward". anything other than that, is something i will contest.Lucia Black (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In spite of repeated polite attempts to communicate you can't even begin to contemplate that you yourself might be the cause of all these discussions. Read your original edit again or ask someone else to look at it. It was appalling in grammar. Look back at your first comments on "interruptions". You asked about Volume 1 but I made no mention of Volume 1. I wrote about Aniamge and the final panel of the manga in Animage in a section about Animage. Could your confusion be your own lack of understanding rather than mine? Have you considered that? I've looked at your history - that's why I saw your edits and why I suggested that you go have an other look at the Kiki articles you edited (have you?) - and in spite of abundant attempts by virtually every editor and reviewer you encounter who -incessantly and almost without exception- correct you on prose and grammar you still persist in thinking that your rewrite edits are improvements. It is baffling to me.

I've used the same sources that you've used to reference the material. Add additional sources if you find them but I ask again that you don't delete material. I think I've improved the article in several sections and I'm not done yet. As I said before. The last reviewer didn't ask that any of the material I added be removed and I see no reason for you to take it upon yourself to do so on such arbitrary grounds. I stopped reverting because I don't want to turn the article into a battle ground but I think it is appropriate that your edits are scrutinised.

Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Indents an minor correction.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not use the same source that i've used. because if you did, you would know they made no distinction of magazine issue to date. So why would your version have had some areas in dates and some areas in months? Additional sources would have been needed to separate what was an actual monthly issue and what was actually a date to further clarify the source provided.

I admit, i don't know where the heck that came from, but the problem was also that you put a reftag in here, so i could not have read it in the prose. i had to modify your own comment in order for the reftag to not hide all the material. That's on both of us.

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with this version. learn to simply provide information to the reader, not clarify unnecessarily. Which means no unnecessary clarification for something that has been well established in the beginning. Not only that but the only magazine it has ever been published was on Animage. So there's really no need to clarify what is obvious. Also note, that this is something so trivial to add, and it causes more of a nuisance than you might think. And the information is not provided from the source, or rather you're trying to over-clarify what the source already provides.

Again, no more. i'm telling you for the last time. I will be against anything that isn't blunt and straight forward. basically, we keep it concise. Short and simple but provides what needs to be said.

no more. ok? the next time you respond, and its more arguing, i will say "done". and that means, its over.Lucia Black (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do use the same sources and the authors of those sources place the same caveats that I've been suggesting. This is a verbatim quote from the top of the Chapter Guide posted at Nausicaa.net, quote: "From page 206 in the Nausicaa Watercolor Collection, a guide matching Animage issues to the Collected Volumes. Originally posted to the MML by Scott Ryan." As you can see he uses the formulation "Animage issues". Just as the Wikipedia article did before your edits and deletions. In one of my earlier comments I suggested checking Watercolor Impressions for guidance. Scott Ryan mentioned that reference book as his source at MLL repeated on Nausicaa net. Here is a footnote for the table on page 206, quote: "Monthly Animage is published on the tenth of the preceding month (The August issue is released on July 10th)". Here is a quote, a footnote from an interview with Miyazaki found on page 149 of that reference book published in English by Viz Media, quote: "The serialization of the Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind manga began in the February 1982 issue of Animage Magazine (Tokuma Shoten)." I asked if you had looked in Animage before and I asked you to check in Watercolor Impressions before, since you keep treating me like an ignoramus I ask again if you actually checked those. Please answer this time. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've ordered the water color impressions, but that's still not the point. If you want water color impressions to be the source, all you had to do is add the references. but the problem is that you weren't providing. I want all information based on the sources, and if there's no sources that i dont have access to, you can provide it yourself, and i wont delete it. But also note that you misproportionately placed the word "issue" in several sections, but not in all of them.Lucia Black (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. I hope you enjoy that book, in spite of the flaws we discussed about a year ago I find it a really nice addition... but ...

What I just quoted is verbatim from the source you used. That source is already linked in that paragraph as the reference you inserted. How was I supposed to know you were unfamiliar with the reference material you relied on as the foundation for your own edits? I asked you several times if you had looked it up. In Animage and in Watercolor Impressions. You ignored those pleas each time and didn't answer. Do you understand that it was indeed your own unfamiliarity with your own source material that sparked this entire exchange? I couldn't very well insert the same link a second time and thought you had looked at the header above the table where that sentence construction, Animage Issue, is indeed used just as I indicated and just as the original text of the article was written.

You asked why I didn't add "issue" in every sentence? Look at the time stamps. Within minutes of my latest edit you were already deleting. I reacted to that first by reverting and stopped editing and rewriting the article further to come here to explain myself. To give the reasoning behind my reversals of your deletions and the motivation for the way it had been phrased in the article originally - before your insertion of that material. I didn't go looking for trivia. When you added detail about dates I augmented the paragraph with an additional date which I consider interesting and pertinent for the publication history of the manga. Yes it is detailed but that doesn't necessarily make it trivial and it isn't controversial. I disagree that it is redundant. Most of all I was also contemplating how to rewrite and make the prose flow a bit more, excuse the phrase, elegantly.

This all dragged on without you answering my questions and although I asked you to slow down to re-evaluate your editing decisions you just kept steamrolling with accusations. It is exasperating. You appear to mistake every instance when I'm actually trying to be considerate towards you. You appear to take every time when I step back and offer suggestions in Talk as some sort of personal affront. Can you please take a less combative and less adversarial approach? Deleting immediately shouldn't be your default. None of the material is controversial and the date is easily verified. I indicated that from my first comment here regarding the dating issue. I find your default to deletion and your edit summaries abrasive and I reacted to that.

General comment, you appear to flit from one article to the next and leave a trail of baffled editors in your wake. This isn't an insult towards you but a plea to take more time and care with each individual article. You were already embroiled in several more article edits and you had not made a single edit in Kiki articles but right after leaving this talk page and right before you signed off you had a go at two of them. Here is the current text of the Kiki Novel article the way you left it. Can you please take a moment to look at it without thinking that I'm trying to do you some kind of injury or insult? It has stood like this for two days now in spite of my friendly advise for you to have another look. Quote:

"The book was adapted in 1989 as an animated film by Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. A live action film based on the first two books, directed by Takashi Shimizu and starring figure skater turned actor Fuka Koshiba playing Kiki[4] will premiere in Japan on March 1, 2014.[5] Disney was also interested in its own live-action take on Kiki in 2005, but no developments have emerged since then. Jeff Stockwell was assigned to the script, and Don Murphy was going to be the producer.[6] A live-action film adaptation of the same novel and with the same name starring Fuka Koshiba is scheduled to be released on March 1, 2014.[7][8] The film will be based on the first 2 novels."

It is but one example. There appears to be a pattern. Can you please reassess how you go about editing Wikipedia in general and these articles in particular? Now, to return here, and probably the bitterest pill for you to swallow although it is honest and blunt to state this. Your own writing style leaves a lot to be desired but you don't accept criticism of your prose and grammar very well. It wasn't done yet but it was necessary to rewrite your prose in your edit about the hiatuses. It is again necessary to edit the prose of your edits. Ask someone else to look at your writing from your original edit and have them look at the way you left that paragraph this time as well. It is quite possible that the way I wrote it can be improved but as it stands now, the way you rewrote it, isn't an improvement. Can you acknowledge that? If you don't acknowledge that can you ask someone else? This may all seem like belabouring a minor point to you but it goes to the core of trying to work with you on the same article. Can you also indicate what precisely requires additional sourcing in the paragraph or in the rest of the article? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're asking me to slow down? i suggest you do the same. because it is indeed a very stressful situation over he most trivial of information. and thats what makes it most stressful.

You consider my writing style something to be desired, i say yours is superfluous. consider it a clash of styles, rather than grammar issues. i will not acknowledge that it isn't an improvement, because you don't elaborate on your problem the moment you say such. And additional sourcing to whatever new information the source i provided doesn't elaborate on. Which means you have to cite the Watercolor impressions when the source does not provide the specific information. The chapter guide only provides when it went on break, and only went into detail on specific hiatus. the first skip, was only one month, and it did not cite why. Yet, for some reason the article says it was because of a trip in europe. Thats where additional referencing is required. But anything that the chapter guide from nausicaa.net doesn't show, you have to use additional referencing.

And at the moment, you are using the reference that links to Animage page of the watercolor impressions to site multiple information. Let me clear: the link to the page is only to cite that the water color impressions art book has been released and on a specific date and what Animage claims it has in the summary. Any specific information that you found in a specific page on the actual art book itself, has to have a difference reference with a specific page number.

at the time, you did not question the issues of the novel page, you only questioned why it was removed from the first film adaptation. So again, hard to focus on what you're saying. Which again, i will not change my thoughts, i've had a difficult time understanding you, and thats partyl because you don't elaborate on the issue up until i give up.Lucia Black (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why I suggest you get someone else to look at your writing because it isn't merely a clash of style preferences. Both your original paragraph and the current version are full of typos and grammatically nonsensical constructions etc. If you can't see them it is even more important that you get someone else to look at your writings. I've already extracted myself from the editing of the article in part in deference to the style differences.

As for sourcing, I added the issue and page numbers for the Animage references in that paragraph. The info is non controversial. There is no reason why those can't be left as is. I can provide page numbers for the other entries attributed to Watercolor impressions -and the original Japanese text if you so desire- but you didn't answer when I asked what else you needed sourced when I asked for feedback on that either. Instead you treat me like an ignoramus. The nausicaa.net link you posted has the construction "Animage issue" in the header above the table and provides the page number (p. 206) for the original table in Watercolors. That's why I asked you if you had checked when you kept insisting that the information wasn't there. It is and is sourced with your own link. Do you understand that on this point the confusion was all yours? Japanese Watercolors page 206: 月刊アニメージュの発完日は対象　月号の前月10日 (8 月号の場合 7月 10日発完) Same: 10th previous month. Ask before deleting. Stick a citation needed tag in if not clear from context what the source of info is. That is the Wikipedia guideline.

This was my original suggestion to you about Kiki, quote: "Can you please slow down and re-evaluate the recent changes you made to see if they are actually improvements in prose or content of the articles you edited? You altered my edits in this Nausicaa (Manga) article without, imo, significantly improving the prose. But when you left to edit several Kiki related articles you deleted a completely innocuous and informative short entry about a live action film from Kiki's Delivery Service and posted it in a different article, Kiki's Delivery Service (novel), where virtually identical information already existed. What are you doing? Feel free to delete this invisible heads up after reading." Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since there is currently no uniformity in the way references are listed, a style has to be picked and all the ones that don't match in the same article have to be redone anyway for the article to ever be considered good article or even properly sourced. Given that the article has information in a reference section and a notes section a citation style has to be picked that allows for citations and links accommodating both these categories. Do you have a preferred style from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:References_and_page_numbers to be used for providing page numbers for multiple citations from the same source from now on? Then we can start making all references in the article conform to that style. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

it is up until now, that you started clarifying everything in full detail up until where you say my rendition isn't an improvement. I will ask you to stop referencing the past. And that's why i want to ge the discussion to end as quickly as possible. because sometimes you want to clarify, other times you don't. most times you can make the fixes yourself, but most of the time you're arguing about writing style and what you prefer and what you don't consider redundant. You may ask "formally" when you want a change, but you dont defend it as nicely.

This is my advice. be completely clear on each problem. don't bring kiki into this, bring it in the other talk page. and use whichoever one you find fit. Once i obtain english version of watercolor impressions, i will re evaluate the sources and will clean it up.Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added Watercolor Impressions page numbers to some of the article entries already but I'd like you to identify which citation template you prefer so cleaning the inline references for the reference section doesn't have to be done more than once. (As long as you don't carry out your threat -posted on my Talk Page- to delete this entire thread I can live with the record of the past as it stands. Moving forward) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone can also have a closer look at what Miyazaki was doing in Europe in November 1982. Was he in Italy,perhaps? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

well there's no point in removing it now, as it was "productive" at some point. but i would like it to remain as such. For now, i will wait until the book is delivered. at the moment, i'm not too worried about inline citation. i'm still looking for other viz media releases. and see if i can make more tables so that the list can be moved to a separate article. And this will leave with a shorter and less detailed history. I'm also looking for more information, i am unsure if the bunkobon storyboards are related to the manga or the film. so i'm considering moving that info to the film article. Other than that, once i get my hands on watercolor impressions, i will be able to put more information in detail.Lucia Black (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

None of the story board books are related to the manga but there are no storyboard books in the manga section at the moment. They were already moved to [Other Books] section before and are also already mentioned in the current Film article. I guess if they don't fit in the "other books" section of this article you propose to delete them? I do hope all the edition info is preserved somewhere easy to find. Since there are quite a few comments in the Talk Page about clarification of publications I'm assuming it is something other readers come to this article for as well. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since their in the film article, and more directly related to the film, its easier to delete it from this page. I've been looking for more first-party sources other than nausicaa.net. but if it can't be avoided. i'll add them in.Lucia Black (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You'll have the Watercolors in front of you soon so I'm repeating bit of earlier remarks here as well as a heads up and reminder. The threads have grown a bit long.

Unfortunately the list, on page 206, in the English translation of Watercolors contains a typo. The information about dates in the list in the Japanese original of Watercolor Impressions corresponds with the cover dates on the Japanese Volumes themselves (Checked personally). From the first release of the first edition of Volume 1 in 1982 and the re-release the next year - in addition to all later Volumes. The only typo in the book regarding publication dates is for Volumes 1's re-release) and Volume 2 which are erroneously listed as August 24 instead of August 25. This is the corrected list, based on the Japanese originals:

Manga Collected Edition release history

• 1 First published September 25, 1982 as Animage Special, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
• 1 First published August 25, 1983 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 1
• 2 First published August 25, 1983 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 2
• 3 First published December 15, 1984 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 3
• 4 First published May 1, 1987 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 4
• 5 First published June 30, 1991 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 5
• 6 First published December 20, 1993 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 6
• 7 First published January 15, 1995 as Animage Comics Wide Ban, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind 7

So, since we have access to both Japanese and English language versions of Watercolors we can refer to both and add a note about the discrepancy. The other pages in the English book match the Japanese dates for the most part.

Last year when I first started posting here, Viz answered some of my other inquiries about their translations but didn't respond to my request for firm dates on their earlier editions of the various series. The nausicaa.net dates match with other sites, though. I think it would be a mistake to omit mentioning the older English series. It would cause a severe misdating of first publication in English for one and I think people come here to look for info about them. What about other language editions, btw? I think it is a good idea to at least reference/link them.

Regarding the 2 story board books, there is always a little overlap because they're all obviously related but they are much more closely related to the film. As is the Guide Book and a lot of the Animage furoku etc. (although AM did give "Viz Select Comics 1.1" away with 89.3 and some of the other 'image Board' material is related to the water-colour sketches he did before even starting on the manga so I must correct myself even while I'm typing ) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Do these entries | publisher_other = Conrad Editora
Sangatsu Manga
Planet Manga fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anime_and_manga_articles_with_obsolete_XXX_other_parameters and if so does the infer need to be incorporated in the article and the citation formatting removed? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Finding other publishers is good for series that haven't been published for other series. for example: Codename: Sailor V.Lucia Black (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears that those links were left over from an old formatting system and were left behind in the info box at the top of the article when that system was abandoned. The xxx obsolete parameters article seems to suggest that the | publisher_other = should be removed from articles. The links are currently already in the info box of this article. Question is should they be incorporated in the body of the text? I've updated the list from nausicaa.net - Nausicaa around the world- with a few more recent publications somewhere else and I'm wondering if they can be briefly referenced and linked in this article? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made an edit. It has resolved the old error but doesn't solve the referencing of the other languages. Since it is an issue affecting other articles I've asked about it here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Avoiding_Anglo-bias Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Also to be clear on this point, I didn't insert the information about other language publishers into the article's info box. They were introduced into this article, together with the presumably then current formatting, in November 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nausicaä_of_the_Valley_of_the_Wind_(manga)&oldid=249440553 The formatting must have become obsolete at a later date. I removed the parameters to make the error messages associated with this article go away and temporarily placed the replacement in the article to accomplish that. Left the info itself untouched pending other opinions. Hope that was ok. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Returning to this section. Perhaps something to consider. Whenever I think about or write about the part about serialization and how to incorporated the hiatuses I catch myself writing in such a way that the interruptions -rather than the creation of the manga- become the focus. Doesn't it make sense to reverse that? In other words, approach that section's prose from the perspective of what was created for the manga -and when it was published- in stead of focussing on when the series was interrupted for other projects? Just a thought. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The breaks are important, but if i find more information on previous viz editions, we will be able to split the majority of the information into a list of chapters and not owrry so much about it being in the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course the breaks are important. I'm not saying they should be omitted. Just thinking about the angle from which to write the entry. Miyazaki indicated that the movies he made were so important that he interrupted creating the manga chapters whenever a movie project came along - and that can be noted in the text - but this article is about the manga, not those movies, so I'm wondering out loud if the main focus of the prose in that section should the creation of the manga - rather than the gaps?

More general side note. I really hope this article about the manga isn't going to be whittled down and split until eventually almost nothing remains in the end except a list of episodes, lumped under a single date. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)