Talk:Your Name

Changing name.

Hello World. I requested a name change of this page because i think the right english name of this film is "Your Name." (with a dot !), as the japanese name is "君の名は。" or "kimi no na wa.". It is written in a lot of useful places such as the posters and there : [1] and also there : [2] and many other places (for example : [3] ) . --Evachan39 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving the page back to its punctuation-less title

It seems the possible titles for this article would be either Your Name. (its current title at the time of me writing this, as well as the title it was moved to) or Your Name. Despite the examples listed by Evachan39, there seem to be more which leave out the period at the end, including the film's IMDb page, its Metacritic page, a review by The Guardian, an article by The Hollywood Reporter, and the film's Rotten Tomatoes entry. I suspect that this is a case of styling, perhaps due to the Romanization of the original Japanese title, and à la the stylised titles of Alien 3 (1992), Seven (1995), and Scrubs (2001–2010). –Matthew - (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspecting that it is a case of styling doesn't make it necessarily true. The official website refers to the movie as "your name." and not only on posters (see the 2016-06-17 news on the news page). Therefore, the dot is needed.Yukimusha (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Look at something like Alien 3 or Scream 4. Official posters and promotional materials refer to them as ALIEN³ and SCRE4M, but we don't call them that in their article titles. The majority of online sources list this film as Your Name, without the period in the title. Perhaps we should have some more users weigh in on this discussion to see if more people agree or disagree. –Matthew - (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The point wasn't that it was written with a period on the posters but that it was written with it on the official website outside of posters, in plain text. If IMDb thought the same way (that it was only a stylized title), or if their database doesn't accept any period at the end of movie titles, the character then disappears from a website that is mostly taken as a reference by everyone. The only valid source should be official materials, like the official wesbite. That prevents any error that could be propagated from a famous third party datasource. Yukimusha (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include a "(stylized as Your Name.)" bit in the first paragraph, as is in the Alien 3 and Scream 4 articles? --Dramartistic (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The article title shouldn't contain the punctuation (overwhelming number of sources refer to it without), and it's such a minor bit of stylization it's not worth mentioning in the article either, imo. Popcornduff (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

How many of those "sources" are actual authorities on the name of the movie? The studio, posters, and website have a lot more authority than random news outlets or publications who probably only omitted the punctuation due to laziness, not knowing any better, or citing similar reasons why Wikipedia has omitted it. xnamkcor (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I refer you all to two this policy ies: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Japanese_words_spelled_with_the_full_stop regarding full stops in Japanese titles. ; and this regarding the technical aspects of adding a full stop in an article, in particular the following sentence: "Page names consisting of exactly one or two periods (full stops) ... are not allowed."

I will add {{correct title}} since the tile the producer or distributor or publisher refers a work by, supersedes any secondary sources, especially if that's the official translation. PS My appologies for the confusion since it seems my brain substituted consisting with containing. Still, the policy regarding punctuation marks in Japanese titles is quite clear.LoMStalk 21:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC) (updated: 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC))

Well... "your name." is not consisting of one or two periods, it includes one, so by this rule (that is a technical one to avoid web addressing problems), keeping the full stop should be okay. But the naming convention for Japanese related articles contradicts it. So... I don't know about it. But I'd like to insist on one point: a character is NOT a stylization, especially when all OFFICIAL sources use it, even when not on posters, where there's not any style consideration. A stylization is the way to write it, and even if it really was a stylization, no objective source qualifies it as minor or not. The period here may be as relevant as the 's' in the movie title Fences. It may have full meaning and, in doubt, should not be missing. Technical restrictions aren't a good argument here, knowing that there wasn't any problem with the title including the period: it works fine in 12 pages of "Your Name." in other languages. Yukimusha (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a stylization. If every official source uses the full stop (assuming that's true), that says nothing about whether it's a stylization. The comparison to Fences makes no sense. Popcornduff (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

About the fact it says nothing whether it's a stylization, it doesn't say it's not. Noone said it had a meaning or not, that's why I wrote "It may have full meaning and, in doubt, should not be missing". Then, no argument for your 1st and 3rd sentences, just statements (the 2nd doesn't even support the 1st). Please bring a more constructed opinion. Yukimusha (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a stylization by virtue of the fact that titles don't usually contain periods/full stops, or other things like differences in emphasis (eg with italics or bold), WEirD caPItaLIZaTIOn, etc. There is a widely established style for titles, title case, and anything that deviates from that style is, by definition, stylization. Speculating about what "meaning" any stylization might or might not have is beside the point. Popcornduff (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Helloooooooo~ it's me~ ! Long Time No See.... Youap ! I think that these 2 english titles that are right (it doesn't mean that there aren't any other) : "your name." or enventually "Your Name." (actually I've got a gorgeous poster of kimi no na wa.). Just to be clear : I always tough that it would launch some kind of talk as long as even I am not agreeing with myself (sigh).... Just do as you want, to be precise, I've seen many different things on many different websites. If I renember correctly (that's not pretty sure) the title used in the film I (maybe there are different versions, who knows ?) have seen is "your name.". So if you want to change the title, as long as it is coherent, I really don't mind, there will be surely no problems. See ya in another world (just joking after watching Yosuga no Sora during the whole night... [sigh...]). -Evachan39 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Post-Scriptum : My dearest apologies if you do not understand anything in this message, I was tired (and I'm actually) when I wrote it... To be concise, I will confess that I think that the actual title of the page is sure nice and right. --Evachan39 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Certain citations needed and grammatical fixes required

Within the plot and cast descriptions, I did notice areas where grammatical fixes could be used. An example of the basic changes are "others'" should be corrected to "other's." Some other grammatical errors include run on sentences that made some parts confusing to me.

There are some areas where there is no citation such as in the accolades of the production. There is also a paragraph of the introduction that did not have a source attached to it.Joshuahi (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Source on the Controversy Section.

Do really we allow blog posts by someone who show no credential, academically or occupationally, to be the only source for an entire section? This doesn't seem right. 2602:306:348C:FD00:41D:312F:DA1D:4C26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. There is little doubt that some of the story elements used in Your Name have appeared in past stories, from folk tales dating back centuries to any number of relatively recent films (Freaky Friday and Timescape being two examples that come to mind). It's common, unavoidable even, that any story will have elements and tropes that have been used before in other films; there's nothing controversial about that. Among writers there's a saying that when you think you've come up with the most clever and original idea ever for a story, you're wrong. It has very likely been thought of by others, possibly a thousand times over. I'd be willing to bet the blog poster wasn't aware of this when he spotted the similarity between the two works, jumped to the conclusion that one copied the other, and composed a blog post to spin it as "controversy!" when it really isn't. mwalimu59 (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The thread (topic?) starter here. The person who added the controversy section readded the section again. Is there any way to get them to stop unless they've addressed the concern about the source? ArcanaCustom (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The section was added by Jsslee with these edits. That source is definitely not reliable. This looks like a textbook case of WP:FRINGE to me. -- ChamithN (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I just saw an unidentified IP address remove my edits without just reason, so I restored it. Second of all, on the matter of whether a source is credible or not: Sources do not have to be authored by someone who has credentials, academic or occupational, in that particular field. I believe you are mistaken for what counts as a reference. If that were the case, this entire Wikipedia article should be voided out because, quite frankly, a viewer without a PhD in filmography or credentials as a professional producer should not be writing about this subject. Jsslee (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I already gave a reason as to why I removed your edit, unidentified or not. You're also confusing published articles with blog posts. If you want to push this theory, find us an article by a reputable published source. If you insist on using a blog post, find us one done by someone who worked on the work, someone with proper background, or someone who worked on the Korean work you want to cite this movie copied. Either would be notable enough, but if Wikipedia becomes a place where we gather any random person's blog post's arguments, then we might as well court flat earth theorists since they, too, have a blog and some have significant following.ArcanaCustom (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

To address your points: that IP editor in question, in fact, did provide a reason for removal with this edit summary. And, no, it's not me who set the standards for references; what constitutes a reliable source is defined by the WP:RS content guideline (part of the Core content policies) I linked earlier, which specifically states that user-generated content like blogs should be avoided. You say that the entire Wikipedia article should not be considered reliable because "a viewer without a PhD in filmography or credentials as a professional producer should not be writing about this subject." Well, you got that right. Because, that's mainly the reason why Wikipedia is considered unreliable by the academic community; since Wikipedia itself contains user-generated content, its reliability can be easily compromised. But, if we were to use that as a justification to cite purely user-generated content from other sites as "reliable", then we'll only end up with circular references and original research. And I'm sure that's not what most editors here strive to achieve. -- ChamithN (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To ArcanaCustom, if you've created a Wikipedia account for the sole reason to show bias on an article, that's a bit concerning in itself. Published articles are basically blog posts nowadays. Gone are the days where you need a publishing and printing company to get people to read your thoughts. Today is the age of the internet, where anyone can publish their findings. I simply referenced that post because it was detailed and well-written. My purpose is to show a complete view. Not just a one-sided praise of the film. I enjoyed the film very much, but it is undeniable that it has been, to some extent, plagiarised from previous work. ChamithN, you hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia is not a place of academic or professional reliability. It is a juxtaposition of work by differing opinions. More controversial articles are edited hundreds of times daily because users cannot agree on the subject. ArcanaCustom, I hope you stay on Wikipedia and become a real contributing member. Cheers. Jsslee (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The section is poorly sourced and shouldn't be in the article. This has nothing to do with bias or anything like that. Jsslee, spend some time understanding Wikipedia policy. ChamithN linked you to some helpful pages. Popcornduff (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff I've read those pages, thank you. I disagree on the subject of bias, as a random IP address decided to take matters into his or her own hands without knowing what references look like. You, my friend, need to spend a little more time doing reading yourself, since you clearly don't know what ChamithN's links refer to. "Circular Reference", for example, is a computer programming term that refers to a phenomenon in which a function contains a function of itself. In terms of Wikipedia's definition of circular reference, it simply means "do not reference Wikipedia". This has nothing to do with our argument whatsoever.Jsslee (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:UGC. Popcornduff (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself here: I linked WP:CIRCULAR only as an example as to why we shouldn't be using blogs as sources. Because, I often come across blogs citing Wikipedia in their blog posts; so, if we cite them here on Wikipedia, that would just result in a so-called circular reference loop. Again, I simply used that as an example to back WP:UGC, which is what matters the most. WP:CIRCULAR has nothing to do with the reference in question. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, it turns out that I accidentally linked to WP:USG instead of WP:UGC in my second comment. It was there until Popcornduff corrected it. I guess I'm responsible for all this confusion. Sorry about that. -- ChamithN (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Your Name → your name. – I've read the discussions above. It's worth noting that "your name." (with lowercase in y and n) is the only official English name of the movie. See the top left logo on the official website of the movie IamCristYe (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose as per WP:MOSTM, lowercase names and full stops should be avoided in article titles. TheDeviantPro (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Your Name (film) or keep it the same, per above.  ONR  (talk)  04:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:MOSTM. There should be no stylistic full-stops in article titles. David Bailey (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously breaks the rules, and this dogged pursuit of preserving how titles look on posters is a bit silly. Popcornduff (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Decorative titles are discouraged per MOS:JAPAN, and I don't see how this should be an exception. English reliable sources also refer to it as "Your Name" (with proper capitalization and without the period), so there's that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose decorative and not supported consistently in third party WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lowercase first letters would automatically become uppercase. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there is a way for an article's title to be manipulated to become what is being proposed, I don't think it should be done. Based upon other articles I've seen of film, anime, and video games, there's more the tendency to write the title in title case (as it is now) on Wikipedia, and then mention in the lead ("usually stylized as "[stylized version]""), and have that be that. I don't see why this specific article should be any different. (Also, refer to MOS:TM, as previously mentioned). JaykeBird (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Katsuhiko Teshigawara's nickname - "Tesshi" vs. "Tessie"

The character Katsuhiko Teshigawara is usually referred to by his nickname, but sources differ on the spelling of the nickname. The copy of the film I saw spelled it "Tessie" in the subtitles, but the English translation of the light novel spells it "Tesshi". Which source takes precedence? This has been changed and changed back at least once in the article already. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"Tessie" is a localiser attempting to make the name easier to handle for western audiences. There is no "si" sound in Japanese, only "shi", so "Tesshi" is the more authentic rendering. The novel should be ignored as we're writing about the film here, but I wonder if we could just take the Japanese version of the film as the source instead? Dunno, honestly. Popcornduff (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving the page back to the title with period

Before, @MatthewHoobin: suggested to move the article to "Your Name" (without period). He considered that that period is just s a stylization, and provided several reports and databases to support his argument. I totally agreed with him at that time.

However, when I check today, most of databases, except IMDB, have already changed the name (in plain text) to the one with period, "Your Name." Check: Rotten Tomatoes, metacritic, Fandango. Those are famous 3rd-party databases in Western, and they normally don't keep the "stylization" of names (like lower cases, or "SCRE4M" mentioned before). So I would assume they consider the period a part of the name, not just a stylization.

I was wondering, could we now re-consider to move it back to its official name, with those evidences being changed? --fireattack (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Development of the film

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2016-12-20/interview-makoto-shinkai/.110150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.46.150 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Poster

I have recently changed the English poster back to the original Japanese poster since there was no prior discussion for an English poster. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the English-language poster, since this is English Wikipedia, for English-language readers. Why not upload the Japanese poster at Japanese Wikipedia? — Film Fan 12:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Film Fan: There are two issues with the edit. First, you didn’t even discuss your proposed change on the talk page. Second, if you look at many of the Featured or Good Articles, the original Japanese posters are used. Even in non-Anime foreign films, the posters from their original countries are used. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 12:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is kinda weird to me, because, for example, Wikipedia specifically recommends using English-language box art for video games, even if the games don't come from English-language countries. Can't find any MOS guideline about this regarding film posters either way. Popcornduff (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule about what country the poster should come from. But I'm not interested in having a heated row about it. However, on the topic of Japanese posters, what is wrong with this one? — Film Fan 12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: WP:FILMPOSTER suggests the article to use the original theatrical release poster. TheDeviantPro (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally, when there is a dispute between the Japanese or English cover images, the unwritten rule is to use whichever image was added first unless there is a consensus established to change it or the original image is too low in quality to sufficiently identify the work and a higher quality version of the same image cannot be found. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on

I'm sure it isn't based on the novel by Shinkai. The movie was made into a novel and was released before the movie premiere. The movie had a longer development process than the novel. The novel is just a novelization of the movie script which developed at the same time as the movie, just like all Star wars movie novels for example. --H8149 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving this page. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Your Name → Your Name. – Per the previous discussion(s), most of people considered that that period is just a stylization, and provided several 3rd party reports and databases to support that argument. But if we check today, most of databases have already changed the name (in plain text) to the one with period, "Your Name." Check: IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, metacritic, Fandango. Those are famous 3rd-party movie-related databases in Western, and they normally don't keep the "stylization" of names (like lower cases, or "SCRE4M" mentioned before). So I would assume they consider the period a part of the name, not just a stylization. To be clear: this rename request is not asking to rename it to lowercase. fireattack (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MOSTMRULES ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, ..."). Having a fullstop/period not at the end of a sentence is a distraction and could be confusing for readers. —  AjaxSmack  01:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Decorative full stops, and especially terminating full stops, are frowned upon in Wikipedia article titles, as in the "skate." example of MOS:TM and the prior RM discussions for Anderson Paak, Bakuman, Damn (Kendrick Lamar album), Fun (band), Gangsta (manga), India Arie, Janet (album), Kobato, Lovestrong, Mad Love (JoJo album), Melody (Japanese singer), Moon (visual novel), Shakira (album), The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, Okay (album), Withering to Death, and Respect (magazine). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  In MOS:TM, it says "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name. ", which seems to be the case here. --fireattack (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the two editors above. A quick search engine test shows that "Your Name" is shown without punctuation in articles about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Would you mind to explain a little bit about what you mean by "is shown without punctuation in articles about the film"? Do you mean it has a majority, or just exists? I'm asking because in my own test, most of results use the one with period. --fireattack (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I can explain more. I tend to use domain search operators (e.g., site:nytimes.com) combined with the film title in a search query. The New York Times does not use the punctuation, nor does Variety or The Hollywood Reporter (the latter two periodicals will talk the most about films). I see that Los Angeles Times sometimes uses it and sometimes does not. Yahoo! News does not use it. It's not to cover up the stylization of having punctuation, but to follow WP:COMMONNAME, "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." It works for me to mention the punctuation stylization in the opening sentence (and later on if applicable). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Makes sense, thank you for the detailed explanation. -fireattack (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's common for the "official English" titles of anime works to not follow normal English rules of capitalization, and may include punctuation or even special characters in non-standard ways. Based on the Wikipedia articles on a few of these that I could think of, the standard practice here seems to be that they should be rendered here using normal English capitalization and punctuation. I am open to changing my vote if someone can point me to examples were such titles were retained in article titles; otherwise, if it isn't done for other works it shouldn't be done here either. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The period is obviously stylization, as it serves no practical purpose._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More Anime pictures

More Anime reference Pictures needed to give Proper visual. 2401:4900:513C:834E:0:0:23F:FFEC (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Value

Having the budget in Yen and the income in dollars seems like an intentional ambiguity, both should be the same unit for clarity. He who isn't busy being born, is busy dying. (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)