Talk:The Wind Rises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Japan / Cinema (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:10, March 1, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Studio Ghibli task force.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. Consensus indicates the article should not be moved at this time. This may change when the English title becomes clearer. Chamal TC 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)



Kaze TachinuThe Wind Is Rising – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The official English name of the film, as well as the Kaguya film, can be found here Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Without better evidence "The Wind is Rising" should be treated as a translation of "Kaze Tachinu". I therefore oppose this move.Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    Would this source count as well? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    Barring conflicting evidence yes, enough to remove my oppose recommendation.. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 01:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Nihonjoe moved the article to the proposed title after this RM was proposed. He was probably unaware of this discussion, but I've reverted the move. Let's let this play out. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    See my comment below. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the move. WP:COMMONNAME applies as well as the fact that the titles for our articles for Miyazaki's other films us the translation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose, obviously. What the hell? These are not official English titles, they're proposed translations like all proposed translations. Notice that the asahi article is using the Japanese names first and throughout, while the slashfilm article is using the translations first and throughout; they're doing this for opposite reasons (and slashfilm is in the wrong here for obvious ones).
  • None of these sources are going to work because they all daisy chain off each other with proposed translations. This also applies to Wikipedia information, which is why it's so important that you do not let random translations and wrong titles stick! Forget about COMMONNAME, because it can never override an official title, no matter how much you want it to; the most important source will always be the thing or the company/ies behind the thing. But above all, at least wait for the localization announcement, please. Despatche (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    You are incorrect in your interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME. While it is not as likely for an official English title to not be the most common English title, it could conceivably happen. Reliable third party sources are far more importance when determining the most common title. In this case, there are just too few third party sources as yet to be able to definitively state the translation they are using is the most common name. This will likely change as the release dates get closer. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and other sources. A localization does not have to happen before an official English title exists. As for my move of the article, I was clearly reverting Despatche's unilateral move to his favored title. His ignorance of COMMONNAME notwithstanding, he should have started a discussion first instead of moving the article and using a rather rude edit summary. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Changing to Oppose. After doing more research, I can't find any official sources which give these English titles. As there is no official English title yet, WP:MOS-JA and WP:COMMONNAME would both indicate that the romanization would be the correct title for the articles for now. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is en:WP. The en title is appropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please see the related discussion at Talk:Kaguya-hime no Monogatari (film)#Requested move. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is too soon. What is the proof that the Asahi article is giving the official title? It may be just the reporter translating the titles. Note that Arrietty went through multiple English titles before the final English language release titles were decided. I think we should wait until there is proof that the film has been shown in an English language context with an official English title (a film festival screening would be fine). Michitaro (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me make this very clear: there is no official English title yet. The titles "The Wind is Rising" and "The Tale of Princess Kaguya" are currently completely made up. They are spreading from and through English-language news outlets and will eventually start spreading from and through Wikipedia. Once an official title comes through, there should be absolutely no problem using it. Please, listen to reason. Despatche (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2013 (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.

Crummy Typical Northern Bias[edit]

Not everybody who uses the english language resides in the northern hemisphere. This means that dating an event by its seasonal time, location would result in Bias, or inaccuracy or both.

When is this season "Fall" Would it be ok if the less colloquial word 'Autum' be used in preference, however this issue is separate and irrelevant to the northern hemisphere bias dating an event by a season introduces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.217 (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Less geographic centric phrases, please. I will edit this now. 203.109.154.38 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Saw it[edit]

there was a sneak preview 2013/7/4 - the poet's book was translated as "the wind has risen" so KAZE TACHINU works ... Fall is Autumn and there's a different word for it in Japanese. That word is AKI. thanks - Sparky (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The film will be declared in memory of Hayao Miyazaki's friend, Jean Giraud.[edit]

I think that this information is splendid. However, it is suspicious.

Show a source of original information. 221.184.38.77 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so how does this related to "Up On Poppy Hill"?[edit]

...because THAT film is only just hitting screens around here, like, this weekend. But no mention on this page or on the Kaguya-hime one... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, the relation is that they are released by the same studio? I don't understand the question, Up On Poppy Hill was released two years ago, it was shown in some English-speaking countries last year. That it's taken a long time to hit the screens around your place doesn't imply any relation with a different film. Presumably the Wind Rises will hit your screens in another two years' time. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

In regard to the beginning of the article, there are some things that could be made clearer:

The Wind Rises (風立ちぬ Kaze Tachinu?) is a 2013 Japanese animated historical fantasy adventure film written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki, and adapted from his own manga of the same name which was loosely based on the short story The Wind Has Risen by Tatsuo Hori, a writer, poet and translator from mid-20th century (Showa period) Japan.[4] Kaze Tachinu is a fictionalized biography of Jiro Horikoshi, designer of the Mitsubishi A5M and its successor, the Mitsubishi A6M Zero; both aircraft were used by the Empire of Japan during World War II.

Specifically, we should clarify that "Kaze Tachinu" is the Japanese title translated as "The Wind Has Risen" (if that is in fact the case). Also, the current Wikipedia article on the story "The Wind Has Risen" makes no mention of aircraft design or of Jiro Horikoshi, so it's unclear whether that information was simply left out or whether Miyazaki has drawn from two originally unrelated sources. 850 C (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See also - Cultural references[edit]

Is there a way to rework the "See also" listing to a cultural references prose paragraph or integrate it into the development section? -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Final film?[edit]

"It is the final film directed by Miyazaki, who announced his retirement in September 2013."

It is always possible for someone to come out of retirement. So, perhaps this sentence should be left out for now, in case Miyazaki changes his mind. If he dies without making another one, then by all means, add it back. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, have edited it. Popcornduff (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nahoko, not Naoko[edit]

Though in spoken Japanese the names Naoko and Nahoko sound very similar, there are two instances in the film where her name appears written. The first is when Jiro receives a telegram informing him that *spoiler alert* Nahoko has begun hemmorrhaging, and it is spelled out in katakana ナホコ (na - ho - ko). Later, while she is staying in the sanotorium, she receives a letter from Jiro, where her name is written out in kanji, 菜穂子 (Nahoko).

In the subtitles of the version that I've just seen on UK TV it's spelt "Nahoko", so it seems you are right. JH (talk page) 17:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Year and political environment of trip to Germany[edit]

"Plot" section: As a person who has not read the manga or the original short story, I think it would be good to clarify the year (and thus the political situation) of Jiro's trip to Germany. It is not made entirely clear in the movie. If the trip happens in or before 1932, Jiro cannot "witness a night raid by the Gestapo", as it says in the plot section now. The Gestapo was a Nazi organization, established in 1933. So what was that uncanny nightly chase, then, Jiro witnesses? A scene to give an impression of the tense political and social situation in pre-Hitler Germany – but definitely not a "Gestapo raid". Yakfell (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The film isn't necessarily historically accurate. Popcornduff (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand. But why then call it a "Gestapo raid" when there is no clear indication given of the Gestapo in the film? It could be SA (Nazi paramiltary organisation that existed prior to 1933) or another radicalized political group of that period in Germany. Just because the film is not entirely historically accurate should not mean that we can interpret even more inaccuracies into the story. Yakfell (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is there a more generic term we can use? I (or possibly someone else, I forget) originally wrote it as "secret police", and someone else changed it. Would secret police suffice? Another term? Popcornduff (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Historic Aircraft[edit]

I removed the section called "Historic Aircraft", and Chyhchang disagreed. I still think it's unnecessary. More opinions would be great. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. 100% irrelevant and clutters up the article. At best the aircraft included might be worth mentioning in a single sentence in another section. Popcornduff (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The article should focus on the film itself and not on the historical aircraft that appears within it. If they are mentioned in the plot summary, a link may be beneficial. —Farix (t | c) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll add an External Link for the aircraft. It made it onto some notable publications. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The IBT article is a great source for the list of the historic aircraft in The Wind Rise (thanks AngusWOOF!) but it is not complete. I could add the aircraft mentioned in the film in the plot summary but they would be scattered all over and litter the plot summary with unnecessary information. So I think it is worth to put them into a dedicated list. I do agree with Popcornduff that the original list clutters up Production section. So I made the list as collapsed table and moved it down in the article.Chyhchang (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The question isn't about source, the question is about relevance. Isn't it WP:Fancruft? I think it's trivial to understand the film, too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's irrelevant trivia, so I've removed it again. Popcornduff (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
A list of historic aircraft isn't any more relevant to the topic than a list of gadgets is relevant to an article about a James Bond movie. It is trivia at best and it doesn't add anything to the understanding of the main topic. And if it is unnecessary information to mention in the plot summary, then it is simply unnecessary information. —Farix (t | c) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I had failed to communicate why historic aircraft list is relevant to this article. So allow me to present a lengthy counter argument. I believe what makes it relevant is that they allow readers to associate the aircraft to the historic events as the film portraits. Image that if this in the plot summary “He meets a young girl named Nahoko traveling with her maid; when the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923…” was changed to “He meets a young girl named Nahoko traveling with her maid; when an earthquake hits…”, you can see that it misses an important element in the historic context of the film. It would be the same when the Mitsubishi A5M aircraft was removed from this in Plot section “Jiro leaves for the test flight of his new prototype, the Mitsubishi A5M aircraft.” Without identifying those aircraft, the readers of this article would be unable to capture the whole historic picture of the story as told by the film. The Itlian and Chinese version of this article also document the aircraft, so I am not the only one who had come to the same conclusion. They are not unnecessary information as Farix concludes otherwise based from my prior statement. I want to apologize for my poor writing. What I mean is that the plot section might not be the best place to document those aircraft. The point I try to convey to this community is that those aircraft are integral part of the story in the film and should be documented somehow in this article.Chyhchang (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Being precise in the plot summary is fine - specifying which earthquake, which aircraft we're talking about. But identifying every aircraft used in the film is not, in fact, an "integral part of the story of the film". Jaws isn't about a shark, and The Wind Rises isn't about old planes. Popcornduff (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of the plains are just props and are there to helping place the audience in the time period. Knowing what they are and how they appear in film doesn't add anything to the understanding of the film. Wikipeida is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only aircraft that are of any significance in the film are already mentioned in the plot summary. For example, you don't see a list of vehicles that appear in The Fast and Furious series of films nor do you see a list of ships that appear in Tora! Tora! Tora! or a number of other WWII films. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The Italian and Chinese Wikipedia articles should have those sections removed too. Popcornduff (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It should also br noted thst when the historic planes section was removed the name of the earthquake nor the Mitsubishi A5M were removed from the plot summary.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Link dump[edit]

moved link from the article in here: