Jump to content

Talk:Princess Mononoke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sjones23 (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 12 November 2012 (→Futher improvement of Princess Mononoke article: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stupid localization. boar-demon(祟り神) and forest spirit(シシ神) is kami.

A cultural meaning of Japan is disturbed. 220.104.48.146 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having the Japanese voice-actors listed in the plot section

In the plot section, we have the Japanese voice actor's name beside each character. However, as this is the English Wikipedia, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the English dub actors listed? I understand that the Japanese version is the 'original and authentic', and I know that some of the more committed fans prefer the Japanese dub, but still, I'm thinking in terms of the wider audience here. I would expect that more people are familiar with Gillian Anderson and Claire Danes than... those other folks. Vranak (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead with the changes. Vranak (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA push?

All right. I am thinking about getting this article up to GA. I am currently working on it in my sandbox. Here's what we need to do for now:

  • Lead section - needs to be expanded to three-four paragraphs and heavily rewritten to comply with WP:MOSFILM#Lead.
  • Plot section - looks good, well between the recommended 400-700 word range for WP:FILMPLOT.
  • Production section - needs to be heavily reorganized to include the history and origins of production, as well as the localization section, which must be rewritten as well. We can merge the soundtrack section within the production section with details on how Joe Hisaishi created the music.
  • Reception section - needs to be heavily reorganized as well and renamed Release, with box office results first, then the critical reception (we can expand it with other notable critic reviews from Japanese and English source like the LA Times and NYT), and then the accolades section (we can use the table format as well). Also, the home media section should be created.
  • Copyedit - this article needs to undergo an extensive copyedit.
  • Sources - we may also need more Japanese sources, including documentaries, interviews and animation history for production information. Also, we can use "The Art of Princess Mononoke" book as a source. Since fansites are generally not reliable sources, apart from Nausicaa.net, they should be removed and replaced with the appropriate reliable sources.

All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Via WorldCat.org, here are some sources I found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Via Google Scholar, additional sources: 7 and 8. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

I am going to work extensively on the production section. The soundtrack section can be merged with the section, and can be also expanded upon as well with the history and studies regarding the film's motifs (i.e. the environmental themes and motifs). For example, the documentary for Princess Mononoke can be used as a source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest avoiding the quotes and copy edit it.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will also work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the cast section is pretty bare; I suggest moving the content discussing the characters in the production section be located to the individual character entries in the cast section, and then that section will be fleshed out with sourced background information on the casting. The production section can then exclusively deal with the development and realization of the project. I also recommend creating an inspirations section where the John Ford influences can be expanded upon (here is one I did at another article. That way the production section can just cover the filmmaking process. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

For the lead section, I think we should simply summarize the article as a whole per WP:LEAD. Per WP:MOSFILM#Lead, we should first begin this section with the year, nationality, genre and director. Then, we should mention the starring roles (in this case, voice actors) and the premise. The next couple of paragraphs should include the development information and history of the English localization. Then, we should mention the release dates, the reception of the film and awards they have made. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Leave plot section, it's good now. But in preambule as I told on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, we don't need plural repetition of cast. We need there "chief" voice stars (like voices of Ahitaka and San, if you will be adding it, but I still think that it's unnecessary by common sence). Awards too, too many of them, only if pick out the most significant and important. Production section... authoritative sources are necessarily if will write motifs like environmental and so on. "Anon with IP" 12:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with mentioning the main voice cast members in the lead section. The infobox is another way to summarize the information and will tend to overlap with the details in the lead section. With film as a visual medium, the front-end (starring actors, live or voice) is consistently mentioned. The back-end (crew members) depends on the film; the director is pretty much always mentioned, but a person like the cinematographer may only be mentioned if the article discusses substantial contributions. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should basically be a concise version of the article. At the moment it doesn't say anything about the production, release or reception. The main voice actors should be included, but I would suggest leaving out the dubbing actors. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The plot looks good, and is in the recommended the word count of 400-700 worda per WP:FILMPLOT but I think it may need some rewording as well as trying to keep it straight to the point without being too excessively detailed. Also, I think the Japanese words for the demon and Forest Spirit should be added. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against adding Japanese words. But about "boar-demon"... he is not demon, he is exactly controlled by demon. So I think we need to rewrite to "A boar controlled by demon attacks an Emishi". You undo and say that's "excessive detail, just boar-demon should do", but really this is fact from the article object, wikipedia needs to be authentic, don't it? So I think my edit is right and you should return it. Thanks.
Overall I will attend to improve plot section, deleting some of excessive and unnecessary details, improving trustworthiness and some other. You please concentrate on production section and else. If we want to make this article a GA... "Anon with IP" 15:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I will also try to help out in the plot section and several sections here as well, in addition to trying to help make it accurate as possible without going overly detailed. Even if some things in the plot section are facts, we should keep unnecessary details out and trivial information, and just because people say something on Wikipedia does not mean it's always true. Also, while some parts of the film just take up a large amount of runtime, it is not essential to understand the plot coherently. Also, just to clarify, we don't own any aspect of the articles. Make sense? Also, if we can change the wording of the film's ending regarding San and Ashitaka, there is a reliable source we can use: Roger Ebert's review, and I quote "There is a remarkable scene where San and Ashitaka, who have fallen in love, agree that neither can really lead the life of the other, and so they must grant each other freedom, and only meet occasionally." This review does not violate WP:OR and is a reliable source, even though the film itself is a primary source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could "a giant demon-possessed boar" be a compromise? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make more sense. I am changing it to reflect that. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sjones23, sorry, but you act so limited... Thank you, Erik, if this user don't listening to others because of prejudices.
I'm against "Roger Ebert's review" in plot. You can add it to "Reception" section, but not in plot. Coz it's only his opinion and what is more I even think it's really not correct, he is wrong. I'm undoing this edits. And some disputable and excessive recent edits by anonym user too. "Anon with IP" 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry, but I was only trying to help out and give out some advice as well. Per WP:PSTS, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since this film is a primary source, we should not add personal interpretations of the plot summary. Just to clarify, it's not just my opinion, WP:FILMPLOT states that "complicated [film] plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." However, "if there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." That's why I am using the Ebert review as a secondary source to make it less complicated. I try to listen to others and help out whenever I can and I have already undone some of the other IP's recent edits. I think we should come up with a compromise on how we can word the film's ending. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Since this film is a primary source, we should not add personal interpretations of the plot summary." That's just what I mean. And I describe in edits directly and correctly exactly what we see in film (primary sourse). So write in plot just what is in primary sourse. While reviews, revisions and so on in "Reception". Thanks for understanding for this time I hope. (And don't wait, please, when someone more will say it or finds actually the same compromise). P.S. Btw if you afraid of my inexperience then I can tell, please, don't write and send me to every rule and guide (I remember your role), but I'm for about 6-7 years in wiki and I know all system quite very good. Just sorry for not perfect english.). With rescect, "Anon with IP" 13:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I think we should come up with a compromise on how we can word the film's ending." I agree. But I don't understand what you don't like there. I think all is more that fine. So.. againt what specifically you are in the ending of plot secton? What you don't like? This is just authentic information from the film, i.e. from primary sourse. That's all. "Anon with IP" 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having been experienced in editing Wikipedia, aware of all of the policies and guidelines for over 5 years and also as a member of WP:FILM, I educate users about certain guidelines and policies that we should follow for the article and am fully aware of the relevant style guidelines and try to get others more familiar with what the project intended with film articles. I am actually not afraid of anyone's inexperience and no one has ignored you or said you could not improve the plot summary, I just want to conform the article to the relevant policies and guidelines (and it is not fine just because other equally bad stuff exists). Even experienced editors like ourselves may forget policies and/or guidelines as well, so if I have done anything wrong, I sincerely apologize.
As what Erik pointed out to me, this article has not gotten good attention historically. Even if there is authentic information in the plot, I believe that not only is it good enough, but it might be complicated and there are actually quite a few examples where plot summaries in film articles do have secondary sources apart from the film's plot which is again the primary source (Four good examples are Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which I am using as the basic models for the article). While I have not violated the original research policy (if it was unintentional, then I am sorry) nor personal interpretation of the plot was intended, complications in the plot may occasionally be cited with a secondary source (such as books or scholarly papers) as noted in the relevant manual of style so we can ensure that the content is verifiable and maintaining a neutral point of view. However, if "there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." WP:FILMPLOT makes it quite clear that we should avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. Per the Verifiability policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
Also, I clearly have nothing against the ending in the article's plot section. I just feel that I find the wording regarding San and Ashitaka's final scene in this section is a little too complicated for my taste and we should avoid minutae and since the intent of a plot summary is to summarize the plot, we do not need to include every single detail that occurs in the film. If there are key plot points in the film, I would suggest that they should be presented here as well and explain why they are important. Anyway, I don't think the plot section needs attention at the moment, and as what Erik pointed out to me, such sections are never immutable. Also, I am not trying to change things just for the sake of changing things, that's all. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

All of the dead citations have been replaced, but all of the references should be archived so we don't lose anymore. For example, WebCite is a good tool for this. Just follow the instructions, it easy and takes only minutes. Then add the archived url and the archive date to the citation with the parameters |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

This section is essentially a list so far and has absolutely no sources. I am thinking we should convert it to prose format or table format and cite the available sources. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a table format would be best. It would be hard to read all these items in prose. I like the way List of highest-grossing films uses a "Ref" column in the first table. Perhaps we can trim the list of awards to the ones that have been reported by secondary sources? That way, we can attach some importance to them. There may be some minor awards that only had a press release and shouldn't qualify for listing. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a table format should work best as well and I also find that too difficult to read all of the items as prose or lists as well. I agree that we should trim the list of awards to the ones reported by secondary sources. Some minor awards that only have a press release should not be qualified for the listing. For a good example of how tables are used, please see Thor (film)#Accolades. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Thor approach looks like a good way to me. In respect of which awards to include, I think it's best to limit awards to national/international awards, and any any awards covered by independent seocndary sources. That way these regional critics awards and magazine promotional cruft is left out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We should just limit awards to national/international awards and any awards covered by independent secondary sources and we should also avoid the regional critical awards and magazine promotional cruft. I am working on this matter in my sandbox and will implement it a little later, as this may take a couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

I am actually quite surprised that this does not have a themes section. We should use the references Erik gave me in his email. For reference on how themes for films are used in Featured Articles, a very good example can be found on Star Trek: First Contact#Themes and Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)#Themes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The reception section is in a pretty bad state in its current form. I suggest that we should reformat it to include box office and critical reception. While I am in the process of writing up my part of the reception in the sandbox, I am going to use reviews from the LA Times, Boston Globe, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and so forth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reception section needs to be completely overhauled. The section doesn't really say what critics like or disliked about the film, and the focus seems to be on the dubbing, which is largely incidental to the quality of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Working on it in my sandbox and will implement parts of it as I go. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any references that have a meta-analysis of what critics thought? For example, a book did this for the first sentence at Panic Room#Critical reception. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release

The release section needs a complete overhaul. It does not have release dates and this section is completely unsourced, apart with the localization section which has at least two sources. We also need to include premiere dates for the English releases and we can merge part of the localization section in with the reception section as well as the production section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to use

As per Erik's email:

CLARKE, James: Feature: Ecology and Animation: Animation Gone Wild: Bambi vs Princess Mononoke Imagine (1748-1244) v.31 , May 2010, p.36-39, English, illus Examines the links between Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke (1997) and Disney's Bambi (1942).

JOLIN, Dan: Back story: Miyazaki on Miyazaki Empire n.243 , August 2009, p.114-123, English, illus Profile an interview with Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki about his long career, with discussion about the themes and production of many of his films.

OSMOND, Andrew: The top 10: Cartoon songs Empire n.239 , May 2009, p.152-153, English, illus Briefly lists and critiques the ten best songs from cartoon and animated features.

BIGELOW, Susan J.: Technologies of perception: Miyazaki in theory and practice Animation (1746-8477) v.4 n.1 , March 2009, p.[55]-75, English Article discussing the work of Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki and its philosophy, with particular reference to Shinto religious imagery.

KIM, Eunjung & JARMAN, Michelle: Modernity's Rescue Mission: Postcolonial Transactions of... Canadian Journal of Film Studies (0847-5911) v.17 n.1 , April 2008, p.52-68, English, illus '...Disability and Sexuality'. Part of a whole issue on film and disability, this article examines national identity and disability in PRINCESS MONONOKE and The GOOD WOMAN OF BANGKOK.

GOULDING, Jay: Crossroads of Experience:Miyazaki Hayao's Global/Local Nexus Asian Cinema (1059-440X) v.17 n.2 , October 2006, p.114-123, English Looking particularly at two of Miyazaki Hayao's films MONON- OKE HIME (Princess Monoke) and SEN TO CHIHIRO NO KAMIKAKUSHI (Spirited Away) as responses to cultural globalisation -i.e. Japanese culture responding to American and Asian influenc

LEYLAND, Matthew: Princess Mononoke Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.16 n.6 , June 2006, p.90-91, English

SCHILLING, Mark: The modest monster Screen International (0307-4617) n.1490 , 25 February 2005, p.16, English, illus Profile of Studio Ghibli from its scrappy upstart to its landmark creations by Hayao Miyazaki: SPIRITED AWAY, HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE and PRINCESS MONONOKE.

WHITE, Dave: PRINCESS MONONOKE: SYMPHONIC SUITE StarBurst (0955-114X) n.277 , September 2001, p.73, English, illus

C.K.: Princess Mononoke Premiere (0894-9263) v.14 n.2 , October 2000, p.90, English, illus

HARRISON, Genevieve: Mononoke hokey cokey Empire n.134 , August 2000, p.20, English, illus On why Buena Vista has failed to release Hayao Miyazaki's MONONOKE HIME in the UK. Includes reference to other animation films by Hayao Miyazaki which have never been released in the UK.

PEDROLETTI, Brice: L'animation d'auteur veut s'imposer au pays de Pikachu Le Film Francais (0397-8702) n.2382 , 09 June 2000, p.15-17, French, illus Focus on Japanese animation and its success internationally. Looks in particular at the POKEMON films, with an interview with Masakazu Kubo their executive producer; and at DIGIMON and PRINCESS MONONOKE.

JONES, Alan: Reviews: movies StarBurst (0955-114X) n.260 , April 2000, p.93, English, illus

GÉNIN, Bernard: Princess Mononoke Télérama n.2609 , 12 January 2000, p.30, French, illus

O'NEILL, Eithne: Princesse Mononoke; Mon voisin Totoro: Hauts faits et pasto. Positif (0048-4911) n.467 , January 2000, p.32-33, French, illus

DELORME, Gérard: PRINCESSE MONONOKÉ Premiere (0399-3698) n.275 , January 2000, p.61-62, French, illus Review of MONONOKE HIME and interview with Hayao Miyazaki.

[J.B.]: Score of scores 1999: the animaniacs Film Score Monthly v.4 n.10 , December 1999, p.44, English Soundtrack review.

HAZELTON, John: Animated English accent Screen International (0307-4617) n.1234 , 12 November 1999, p.8, English, illus On Miramax Films marketing an English dubbed version of PRINCESS MONONOKE to a broader audience than the usual animation fans.

BURR, Ty: Quick takes Entertainment Weekly (1049-0434) n.511 , November 1999, p.50, English, illus

FILM REVIEWS Variety (0042-2738) , November 1999, p.88, English, illus Review of release of English dubbed version

KHOURY, George: An interview with Neil Gaiman Creative Screenwriting (1084-8665) v.6 n.6 , November 1999, p.63-65, English, illus An interview with Neil Gaiman who discusses the process of writing the English screenplay for the Japanese animation PRINCESS MONONOKE.

WILNER, Norman: Cinema Scope review Cinema Scope (1488-7002) n.1 , September 1999, p.96, English Reviews of films shown in 1999 Toronto International Film Festival.

VITARIS, Paula: Princess Mononoke Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.31 n.4 , April 1999, p.7, English, illus Neil Gaiman talks about writing the English language dialogue for the English version of PRINCESS MONONOKE

LURIO, Eric: Toon reviews Animato (1042-539X) n.40 , April 1999, p.113, English, illus

DOYLE, Wyatt: Disney Turning Japanese Asian Cult Cinema n.21 , December 1998, p.25-28, English, illus On the success of MONONOKE HIME (Princess Mononoke)in Japan. Disney immediately scooped up the rights for the film out- side of Japan. Japanese animation continues to be successful both at home and internationally.

SCHILLING, Mark; BROWN, Colin: Marketing News: Royal Ascent Screen International (0307-4617) n.1146 , 20 February 1998, p.18, English, illus on the marketing of the film in the US

KLADY, Leonard Variety (0042-2738) , 02 February 1998, p.28, English, illus

SCHILLING, Mark: Reviews Screen International (0307-4617) n.1117 , 18 July 1997, p.16, English

SCHILLING, Mark: Marketing Focus: By royal appointment Screen International (0307-4617) n.1117 , 18 July 1997, p.11, English, illus on the marketing of Studio Ghibli in Japan

FITZPATRICK, Michael: Front desk clips: manga mouse! Empire n.96 , June 1997, p.30, English, illus Disney will be distributing Hayo Miyazaka's latest movie, The PRINCESS MONONOKE.

These will help the article immensely. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 redraft

In the next couple of days or weeks at least, I am going to be in the process of writing up a complete redraft of the entire article using the suggestions provided above, along with the sources Erik provided for me in my email and also other sources that I will find (such as books about Miyazaki himself and the production). This result will be an article that conform to the policies and guidelines of this project. I will also implement the redraft when I finish it and then have it peer reviewed. The ultimate goal after this is to possibly get it into a GA or an FA and have it featured on the main page as a TFA on July 12, 2017, the film's 20th anniversary. And let us not forget User:AnmaFinotera, one of the top contributors of the article who, sadly, is in permanent retirement. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length discussion

Please see WT:FILM#Edit war on Princess Mononoke for discussion on the plot summary. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futher improvement of Princess Mononoke article

  • 2) Elen of the Roads, quite true. But honestly I prefer variant that we have now and I will explain why. In present variant we have main sourse - film itself. We just describing dry facts from film, truth. In this approach easy to correct someone possible mistakes and so on. But if "try to convey the purpose and meaning of the scenes" this might be OR, neutrality violation and many other violations... it can generate tons of disputes. Many members will spend time on non productive things. Or it needed very strong and authoritative sourses. And what I don't like even more in this variant - even authoritative sourses can write shitty delirium. After all there people writing it too. And they can be deeply mistaken... I know WP rules, please, don't write them here. I know that WP info must be based on sourses and so on. Just share with you my own opinion. Rules give birth to other problems and sometimes made hostages itself. WP itself is good example... So, how I said, coz all of that I prefer real present variant. And even if write purpose and meaning of the scenes I bet plot section will be not shortened - but vice versa. Btw even we have quite dry description, there are meaning of scenes in section too... And in the end, this is just words. If you want to suggest something, please, do it specifically. Then it will be faster and what more important - better. Let's not "spread over the paper". Just specific suggestions. P.S. Ah... sorry comrades again for not perfect english. But I hope you understand all what I mean.
  • 3) Btw I'm seeing user:TheFarix making strange edits in categories in anime articles (including "Princess Mononoke"). Look at his contribs. I don't understand such edits, do you? I don't see reasons to move categories like this... hm... can someone explain? Best explanation that I have - just silly tamping of edits. Sorry if I mistaken, TheFarix.
  • 4) Btw I have doubts about need of to say "Ashitaka and San starts to develop romantic feelings for each other" or not in plot section. Well, it's it is obvious that they like each other, but "romantic feelings"... what do you think? And I bet few know this, but Ashitaka is engaged to be married to Kaya (young lass in start of film, who gave him amulet or charm (that beautiful stone like knife, which later Ashitaka will pass to San)). So really have doubts... Your visions and opinions? Maybe better to drop such phrase?


It does appear that you have basic knowledge of the core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the English Wikipedia may take some time getting used to for newcomers from other language Wikipedias. TheFarix and I are both well-respected editors within Wikipedia so we know what we are doing in our work, and TheFarix is not making strange edits to anime categories. TheFarix appropriately tagged this plot section appropriately as it is excessively detailed. Also, just to clarify, this is the English Wikipedia we are in (not the Russian Wikipedia), so you are a relative newcomer to this project and I appreciate your contributions here. However, I find the current version of the plot rather confusing here and I am partially convinced of the plot summary's length, but I still believe that it is excessively detailed. What I meant was that since the film's plot was quite complicated and that I did not want to shorten the plot to make it ambiguous to other readers, there is actually a way we can bring it down to the 400-700 word length per the WP:FILMPLOT guideline (keep in mind that this is not policy), and this guideline does not set a limit here. As what Betty Logan pointed out, the standard response for breaching this guideline is that the film is "complex" or "long", but this in itself does not justify breaching the guideline (since that is the standard excuse for plot bloat): in most cases a responsible editor should be able to select a level of abstraction that meets the guideline. If an editor can reduce the plot to within the guideline limits then generally they should be allowed to do so, provided the premise of the story is still adequately conveyed; it is not necessary to include every single plot development. As a responsible editor, I am usually allowed to reduce plot summaries within the guideline limits, but the issue on this plot summary is not plot complexity, but narrative complexity. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer project and that there is no deadline. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over both plot summaries and find this one to give most all impotent details without going into over details and flows much better. The only detail I find missing is why Ashitaka is unable to condemn Lady Eboshi's actions. The plot summary currently on the article is hard to understand, and this is coming from someone who has seen this film several times. The plot of this film isn't really that complex and there is no reason it shouldn't be within the word limit as outlined by WP:FILMPLOT. As for my other edits, they have nothing to do with with this situation, so you comments is comes down to an assumption of bad faith. However, all of those edits are in relation to WP:SUBCAT and manually populating [[|Category:Anime films by year of first release|anime films by year]] categories. —Farix (t | c) 18:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the plot is not really that complex and there is no reason that it should not be within WP:FILMPLOT's word limit. I think we should implement this version of plot summary from my current redraft into the article:
The film opens with a description that Japan was once populated with forests, where a group of gods live.[1] Ashitaka, a young man riding on his red elk Yakul, lives in a remote village belonging to his tribe, the Emishi. The village is attacked by Nago, a giant wild boar turned into a demon god (祟り神, Tatari-gami, called "demon" in the English dub). Ashitaka kills Nago, but the prince is inflicted with a curse on his arm, granting him superhuman strength but will also kill him.[2] Ashitaka discovers from the village's oracle that Nago was aggravated by an iron ball in his body; the boar also came from the western lands. In search of a cure, Ashitaka follows the oracle's advice and sets off to the west.[3] As he wanders the land, Ashitaka befriends Jiko-Bou, a traveling monk who tells him about the forests in the west as well as the deer god (シシ神, Shishi-gami, called the "forest spirit" in the English dub), a creature who lives there.
The forest is continually cleared by a group of citizens living in Tataraba (たたら場, called "Iron Town" in the English dub), a town located in the west that also serves as a refuge for the country's social outcasts; the town is led by Lady Eboshi. The citizens use the forest to mine iron ore and also to make advance weaponry called Ishibiya (石火矢, lit. "stone fire arrows"), resulting in fights from the forest gods. In one such fight, Eboshi's people are attacked by a group of giant wolves led by their goddess Moro; among the group is San, a young woman raised by the wolves and has a hatred towards humans. Eboshi’s people drive off the wolves. In the forest, Ashitaka rescues two injured men and takes them to Tataraba, encountering the Deer God in the process. While in Tataraba, Ashitaka discovers that Eboshi turned Nago into the demon god and, after finding out more about the town, he is unable to condemn Eboshi. Later, San infiltrates Tataraba and fights Eboshi, but Ashitaka intervenes and ends their duel. As Ashitaka leaves, he is unwittingly shot at by one of the townspeople. San takes Ashitaka, who is on the verge of death, to the forest. The deer god, in the form of a gigantic Daidarabotchi, arrives and transforms to its deer-like form; the spirit heals the gunshot wound, but is unable to remove Ashitaka's curse.
As San and Ashitaka fall in love with each other, a group of boars led by their god Okkotonushi arrive and attack Tataraba in a desperate attempt to save the forest. Eboshi plots to kill the deer god, while Jiko-Bou intends to give the head to the Emperor of Japan, who promises to grant the town's protection from the local daimyos. The citizens of Tataraba and the imperial hunters manage to kill the boars. By using the boars's skins, the hunters trick Okkotonushi into leading them to the deer god, and San is unable to convince him of the truth. The hunters turn Okkotonushi into a demon god, trapping San within it. Ashitaka, Moro and the wolves reach the forest and rescue San. The deer god arrives and takes the lives of both Okkotonushi and Moro, but Eboshi confronts the deer god during its transformation into the Daidarabotchi, and uses her Ishibiya to behead the spirit.
As Jiko-Bou collects the deer god's head, the spirit searches for the head by destroying everything in its path; Tataraba is nearly burned down in the process. Ashitaka and San confront Jiko-Bou, who allows them to take the deer god's head. After Ashitaka returns the head to the deer god, the land becomes green again, and the accursed and lepers are restored to health. San and Ashitaka part, vowing to see each other as much as possible, while Ashitaka, finally freed of his curse, decides to rebuild Tataraba. Eboshi vows to rebuild Tataraba along more harmonious lines, and the final scene shows a Kodama appearing in the forest.
It's much easier to read and is within the word limit outlined on WP:FILMPLOT, and this flows much better and gives out impotent details without going into over detail. Would that work? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sjones23, yes, I agree, specifically english wikipedia have differences, in the moments quite critical and sharp differences with other language wikis. So, yes, I will need time to get into the way, or how to say... to learn these differences, shorter saying. But that doesn't means that I'm wrong now in this specifical question. And I don't wanted to offend or hurt somebody feelings. If so I'm sincererely apologize. I just wanted to investigate. And make improvements of english wiki. ... But I must say, that you, Sjones23, is quite double-faced, you change your opinions often. You sating and agreeing that plot of "PM" is complicated and complex and after one day you saying that it is not so. You should not do this. Or this means can't to come to an agreement. You said:"Let's hope there are no more edit wars based on misunderstandings." But if you will go from one side to another... I hope you understand. So I just kind advice to watch and keep your words. And don't forget what admin Bbb23 said to you:"I strongly urge Sjones to stay away from the article for a while to prove his good faith". I believe that you are respected editor, but everyone can make mistakes and so on. Rules, guidelines, etc, are only one side of a coin. Well, I hope we understand ech other. Again I'm saying I don't want to offend somebody, just saying my sincere vision and opinion. Maybe some roughness...
TheFarix, really I didn't undersand totally. You mean that there is fixed order in categories? I read that rule, but didn't understand it completely. Will be glad if you can explain. Thanks. For example, how I see this: in WP:CAT "Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.", then I don't understand why you moved 'Studio Ghibli animated films' and 'Toho animated films' categories to the end, when it is obviously that in this article this categories is more significant than, for example, 'Picture of the Year Japan Academy Prize winners' and 'Sengoku period in fiction', even than 'Films directed by Hayao Miyazaki', 'GKIDS animated films' and 'Miramax Films animated films'... So will be glad if you can explain. Thank you.
Sjones23, about your sand-box version of plot. I must say that I don't like it and reasons I telled earlier. Look, you write, for example:"After Ashitaka returns the head to the deer god, the land becomes green again, and the accursed and lepers are restored to health. San and Ashitaka part, vowing to see each other as much as possible, while Ashitaka, finally freed of his curse, decides to rebuild Tataraba. Eboshi vows to rebuild Tataraba along more harmonious lines,..." - what I see there it's completely muddle, misinterpret, lie. This is rough OR and distortion of what we really see in the film. I hope you will understand. And much places in your sand-box version like this example. So I disagree, must decline your version. Reread please what I wrote to Elen about different variants (point two). Thank you and again sorry all comrades for my not perfect english, must hurry just now, don't have much time to sit with dictionary and correct all mistakes. You can correct me if you want. Best wishes. "Anonymous with IP" 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I am a respected editor, having been involved in Wikipedia for nearly 6 years now. At the same time, we often make good faith mistakes. It happens though. :-) Basically, this is not original research, as you put it, it's just a summary without going into too much detail. At the same time, you want to show some respect towards your fellow editors and the reasons for doing so. I realized that the plot of Princess Mononoke is not really that complex and the recent plot summary is still hard to understand here and TheFarix has clearly explained that the plot summary is hard to understand here, and you have seen the film several times according to him. No one is ignoring you or saying you could not improve the plot, the basic catch is you want to summarize the film itself without going into too much over detail. The categories have absolutely nothing to do with the present situation at the moment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Napier 2005, p. 234.
  2. ^ Clements & McCarthy 2006, pp. 505–506.
  3. ^ Clements & McCarthy 2006, p. 506.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Mononoke&oldid=522560226"