Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)

Merge Teto

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

Nausicaa Website not allowed as an External link??

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

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

Crystalis?

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

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

Characters, Ships and species

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

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

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

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

Merge Film and Manga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mehve/Möwe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Create a character page for nausicaa?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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