Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Takeo Kimura filmography/archive1

Takeo Kimura filmography

Nominator(s): Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/Takeo Kimura filmography/archive1

I'm going to preemptively address a couple things: I see there's been some recent discussion about the tail end of criteria 5c, namely the red links bit, and suspect that will be brought up. Beside WP:REDLINK, which basically states that red links are good not evil, I'll mention that such objections were stamped out at FAC a couple years ago.[1] (As an aside, if red links actually bother you that link has instructions on how to change it to blue or a more pleasing shade with your monobook. Alternately, you could suggest a different colour or shade via beta feedback.) Yes, I believe them all to be notable. No, I don't plan to create ~300 stubs. Second, the references after the production studios circa 2005 and on are there because JMDb is the only one of the database refs with full studio listings and they cut out at that point so I had to dig around. Also in advance: thank you for your time. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments I really really like this list. And the fact that it's not some stupid actor or director is great! (Vittorio needs some company) I'm mostly okay with the red links thing, though I do wish there was a little more blue and a little less red. That said, the main comments I have probably have to do with the fact that it's an extremely Japanese subject, with lots of Japanese writing and lots of Japanese sources. There's nothing wrong with that, but I would imagine most reviewers here would be unable to be as thorough as they'd like to be. So what would be nice is if there's a Japanese-speaking third party WP-user who could do a copy-edit/run-through of sorts to check for the stuff that I and other non-Japanese speaking reviewers can't. Obviously this has nothing to do with the FL criteria, but personally I'd hesitate to support a nom like this since I have no idea what the hell is going on. Are there any typos? Are the references reliable (I'm looking at you JMDB)? Do the references actually reference what they're referencing? etc.
However, I can make some comments nevertheless:

• As per previous filmographies that have passed FLC, I'm not so sure about the Studio column. I understand that the Japanese film market is a bit more studio-centric in some ways, especially in the olden times, but this doesn't seem like a totally necessary point to list-ize in this fashion. Especially since there's almost no variation in the first 3 decades or so, and the last decade or so turns into an incoherent (and therefore mostly unhelpful) dirge of multiple-studios-per-movie.
• Another reason for the above suggestion is that the tables seem awfully wide. And so, in many monitors, they'll just end up getting squished. Columns will be inconsistent between tables, and some entries (like Princess Raccoon) will end up taking 8 lines, at least on my monitor.
• Why are some of the titles translated and some not? (ie, Myōgamura kenbunki (1979)).
• The references need a bit of work, namely in proper italicization of magazines/newspapers.
• "with Diamond Line star" what's Diamond Star?
• "With him Kimura developed a bold, expressive style, exemplified in Gate of Flesh (1964) starring Joe Shishido, Tokyo Drifter (1966) with Watari and Fighting Elegy (1966) with Hideki Takahashi." Very confusing sentence. Too many names, bad timing with the first pronoun, and too many commas to understand without a second or third take.
• "He was also a part of the writing group which formed around the Suzuki in the mid 1960s under the pen name Guryū Hachirō and wrote Branded to Kill (1967)." Another confusing pronoun, given the preceding sentence(s). And "the Suzuki"? Also this sentence is a bit of a run-on. Needs a comma or a period or a breath in there somewhere.
• Are all the actors names necessary here? There's already a rotating cast of directors, and a bunch of actor's names is confusing it all. And that said, the Art Director and the actors usually have nothing to do with each other, so why mention it at all?
• "He worked with Suzuki on several more films, among them Zigeunerweisen (1980) which was voted best Japanese film of the 1980s by Japanese film critics, Pistol Opera (2001) a follow-up to Branded to Kill and Princess Raccoon (2005) starring Zhang Ziyi and Joe Odagiri." Another run-on.

That's all I've got for now. I like this list alot, so I definitely want to see it succeed, despite my own difficulties in reviewing it. Drewcifer (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. What a stark contrast to GAN. Thanks, yeah, I'm as director-centric as the next film geek but these "below the line" and almost below the line guys definitely deserve some attention as well. I'd love a set of Japanese eyes on this too. I should have explained this on nomination but I wouldn't say I so much read Japanese as slowly decipher it. However, I meticulously went over each title (Kinema Junpo was my primary source (which thankfully has the titles spelled out in hiragana as well) with JMDb and allcinema having only a handful of titles not listed on Kinema Junpo where the latter two had bigger gaps) with google books, some of my own books, a bevy of online translation and transliteration tools and my own limited knowledge of the language. All databases (and indeed even books) are bound to include some errors and omissions but I was able to correct typos and errors from Kinema Junpo and the others and have gone over my own work too of course but would appreciate as many additional eyes as I can get here. I can't definitively state that this list is a complete filmography but it's at least five times as long as any English language one I've come across. I'm confident that the three filmography sources are reliable and I used JMDb for a few things on the FA I did during which it went uncontested. Kinema Junpo especially is an incredible resource (with plot summaries and small production blurbs for 95% of the films on this list, albeit in Japanese) and allcinema is solid but I do consider this a trial by fire for the both of them. (I'm going to continue below instead of cutting up your post but it that doesn't work I'll maybe switch back to the convention going forward.)

• I figured the studio column would come up too. I'm not entirely opposed to removing it but because I poured so many hours into it I'm going to wait until a little deeper into this nomination, and hopefully a few more opinions on, before making any drastic cuts. Here's my rational behind it: it's helpful in identifying the films—for future article creation purposes especially. Also it helps paint a practical and real example of Japanese film history, the domination and tremendous output of the studios at their height in the 50s and 60s, the migration of young talents to Nikkatsu in 54, the television crisis circa 71 and even what appears to be increased financial risk distribution going on now. That said, I prefer keeping the rows thin too and not having them would save me more time on any further filmography attempts. I'm more than open to consensus on the matter.
• I made a conscious decision not to translate any titles myself so all of the English titles are from books, reliable websites and theatrical and home video releases. I almost translated some of the more obvious ones as I don't believe that to be original research but decided against it as it may have introduced errors and wouldn't be helpful in tracking down the films. Obviously, many of the early films don't have translations and even a couple late ones evidently haven't been distributed outside of Japan.
• The magazine/newspaper thing completely slipped my mind. Fixed.
• I thought a Diamond Line explanation would bog down the text but I probably shouldn't even bring it up. Removed. (Explained at Toshio Masuda and, in future, other relevant articles as I get to them.)
• Confusing sentence rewritten. Definitely didn't need the starring names there, critics and writers talk up Suzuki (and Kimura) more than the stars on those films.
• "The Suzuki"... whoops. Rewritten.
• Removed a few more names in the second paragraph. I'm just trying to sneak in a little context so readers who come to this list cold might get an idea of the, let's say, notability or prestige of some of the more prominent films he's work on. If you think it needs further pruning let me know.
• Run-on cut up.

Thanks for your review. Very helpful. I hope I addressed everything adequately. And I definitely hope this nomination gets through as well. :) Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN can be a frustrating place for sure (btw I've got an article there at the moment, so feel free =) ). Having a set of Japenese-speaking eyes seems incredibly important to me, especially given that you don't really speak it yourself. There's just bound to be stuff that is a little off that only someone who speaks the language could pick up on. But like I said earlier, this has nothing to do with the FL criteria, only my review of the article. But I won't support the list's nomination without it; sorry. There's places to go for such a thing; I once had to contact a photographer to get GFDL permission for the use of a photo, but the guy only spoke Italian. So I found some users on the English WP who also spoke some Italian to translate my message for me. It worked great. I'd recommend just messaging a few people to see if anyone would be willing to help.

The lead is looking better, and is definitely easier to comprehend. I'm still hesitant about all of the actor's names, however. I'd also like to suggest bringing the number of films mentioned down a little bit. Alot of them are just listed without any context provided (in the prose) or made available to the reader (via a blue link), so they're fairly unhelpful. Knowing that he worked on The Sea and Poision, for instance, tells me nothing. In all, I count 28 films listed. In three paragraphs, 28 titles is information overload, and removing some of the less-notable ones would be a good way to kill two birds with one stone.

I understand about being hesitant about removing the studios section, since it took so much work. I also understand your reasoning in favor of it. I would say, however, that even though the table does paint a picture about "migration of young talents to Nikkatsu in 54, the television crisis circa 71" and stuff like that, that's not what this list is about. Such information is better suited to be placed and found in an article like Japanese cinema. I'd also argue, that even though it does paint that picture, it doesn't paint it very well. I know only a bit about Japanese cinema, and I still didn't really decipher anything about a television crisis or a migration of young talents until you mentioned it. Which again, leads me to believe that such info is better suited at the Japanese cinema article, in text form rather than a table to be deciphered, explaining it clearly for people like me. That and the whole table width thing. Drewcifer (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was painful but I tightened up the lead a bit more (I love Fighting Elegy and Velvet Hustler but a man's got to do what a man's got to do). In terms of actors I've only kept the three giants (and Suzuki!) I guess I shouldn't sell myself too short. I can read, or at least transliterate, hiragana and katakana. Basically, what I did was transliterate those titles, available on Kinema Junpo and allcinema, into roman characters a la WP:MOS-JP and for the English titles I did zero translations and simply sought out the most common English titles, either official or those translated by film historians and writers and the like. The deciphering was for my own peace of mind, verification-wise. That said, it's no trouble at all that you want to hold off on a support. I've listed this nomination at Wikiprojects Japan and Film so here's hoping we get someone willing and able to slough through the databases. I remain optimistic.

I realized the Studio section will probably have to go and I'm risking not "dealing with concerns in a timely manner" but I hope you don't mind indulging me for a couple days more. Just in case a slew of people decide they can't live without it. It's not a substitute for a good Japanese cinema article, as you say, but interesting to me at the very least. Mostly, I just need time to say goodbye. :) Doctor Sunshine (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to wait for a second opinion on the studios column thing. Drewcifer (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An update. I went ahead and removed the studio columns. I'm actively seeking editors to review the Japanese language references. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but have a working knowledge of Japanese, and can read the kana transliterations of the titles with no problem. (I hope that a native speaker does look over this too.) So far I have checked the the '40s, and everything seems fine. Doctor Sunshine has used Kinema Jumpo, which is certainly a reliable source, and I checked against both that and the Japanese Cinema Database, maintained by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, under the Japanese Ministry of Education. I found one minor error, which I corrected-- an easy mis-read when one's eyes are strained :) I'll try to check other decades later on unless someone else beats me to it.

I don't know if more input in this review is wanted, but here is a little: I notice the first three listings at JMDB (as art director) are not included-- apparently because Kimura was an assistant. Since this is trying to be a complete list of work, why not list them anyway with a note ("Assistant")? Especially since we already have a stub started on Marai no tora... Also, I disagree with removing the studios. I prefer putting the three versions of the title on top of each other, just for that reason-- the ability to include other useful information such as studio without cramping the screen width. About the red links: I'm all in favor of red-linking, however these are red links to the Japanese/kana titles, which-- I assume-- are never going to be articles, only redirects to the English titles. (Marai no tora has "Move me!" written all over it...) I suggest only red-linking the titles for which you have English titles. Will try to check the other decades in a day or too, but so far, great work, Dr. Sunshine! Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and, hey, I'll take as much input as I can get. I was wondering if I should add the assistant credits. My rational was that he wasn't famous for being an assistant and I wasn't sure how comprehensive their records were for that sort of thing but, as a reader, I'd rather have more information than less. I'll add them tomorrow. For the untranslated titles, that's something to consider too. Personally, I'd prefer to keep them as people create articles under their original-language titles as often as not and this list should help to keep track of that. And then they can be moved as appropriate. Good catch there by the way, I can't believe there's already an article for one of his assistant films. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Why should JMDb be regarded as a reliable source? I am presuming that it's run similarly to IMDb, which also is not considered RS, and hence only appears in filmography FLs as an external link, not as a reference. As far as the red links go, I am in principle not opposed, but that's a guideline discussion, not a case-by-case one - is it so hard to simply drop the brackets and leave them unlinked if you're not willing to create them? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  It's always dangerous to presume that something of ours is identical to something of theirs... this leads to all kinds of bias, and is one reason I am so opposed to the home-made rule-making that increasingly governs things at English Wikipedia. The KMDb, for instance, is run by the South Korean government. I can't put my finger on it right now, but I read somewhere that the JMDb gets its data from Kinema Jumpo. In any case, it's not a Wiki. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I had this same worry too, based on IMDB. I think it's a valid question to ask, especially since none of us seem to be able to confirm whether it's WP:RS or not. I suspect that analogy with IMDB might be a little unfair, since the only thing they have in common is part of an acronym, but regardless we still need some way of confirming its reliability. The same could be said for every other Japanese-language reference, but I guess JMDB just seems like an easy target because we're so familiar with IMDB. Drewcifer (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I've been using it based on the two references at our Japanese Movie Database article. The first one is from Tomohisa Inano on the Columbia University website which endorses JMDb for scholarly research.[2] The second one is the JMDB about page, not a lot there but it does indicate that it's not user submitted information.[3] Allcinema's company info page indicates that it's backed by what appears to be a major corporation, Stingray.[4] While those two were established in the 1990s, Kinema Junpo was established in 1923.[5] It's database is also mirrored by Variety Japan (which, as of a couple months ago, may or may not have blocked access to Internet users outside of Japan—I can't connect anymore, anyway) and at least one other website. Nikkatsu, for whom Kimura made most of his films, also has an extensive film database, however there's no Kimura page I can link to—only search results—and it's only Nikkatsu films so I didn't include it. And, for what it's worth, despite a few typos and various omissions each database is corroborated by the others as well as countless individual sources I've come across on the various films, etc. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, and redlinks. The guideline, WP:REDLINK, says there's nothing wrong with them: they only indicate that there's a lot of room for Wikipedia to grow on the subject of Japanese films and directors. I only brought it up because I'd seen a lot of FAC objections based strictly on individual users' tastes and wanted to avoid that. For the record, I do intend to create at least a couple new articles from the red links in this list but I've come to prefer writing a longer article when I'm ready as opposed to a gaggle of stubs.Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I accept the rationale for not having sortability, though I still think the list would benefit. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "which then became Daiei" Comma after here. "He worked with a variety of directors including top action director Toshio Masuda on films such as Red Quay (1958) with top star Yujiro Ishihara and Gangster VIP (1968) starring Tetsuya Watari." A bit wordy and run-on. Try "He worked with several directors, including top action director Toshio Masuda on films such as Red Quay (1958) with top star Yujiro Ishihara and Gangster VIP (1968) starring Tetsuya Watari." "Suzuki often rewrote his scripts with Kimura" Comma after here. "writing group which formed"-->writing group that formed "for director Kei Kumai over a period of almost 20 years." "He worked with Suzuki on several more films. Among them was Zigeunerweisen (1980) which was voted best Japanese"-->He worked with Suzuki on several more films; among them was Zigeunerweisen (1980), which was voted best Japanese "At age 86 Kimura directed the first of four short films with Mugen Sasurai (2004)" Comma after here. I know you've probably thought about this, but have you considered making the table sortable? I wouldn't oppose over this, but it would be much easier to organize his titles by director, by title, and maybe even by Romanized title. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Appreciate the review. Honestly, at some point I got self-conscious about using too many commas and semicolons and scaled way back. I'm going to step it back up. Changes made. And I did consider making it sortable but I definitely want to keep the decade breaks—for navigability—and there's no graceful way to do the whole thing without having the breaks clumped together at the top or bottom of the list. Even if I implemented it within each decade, which would limit its usefulness, it would force cell borders and mess up the alternating row shading which I'd really like to keep. For the smaller tables, I don't think having them sortable would be that useful and I'd like to keep them uniform. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, but I couldn't evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for the support. I suspect the code for table sorting will be improved at some point and I'll definitely look into implementing it then. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It may be beneficial for a sortable feature due to the length of the table. I would also recommend editing the year column to only mention each year once. Looking through the list, they all seem to blend together and it would be easier to see one instance of say, 1949, for example. Would it also be possible to increase the size of the notes at the bottom of the sections? I have good eyesight but it may be difficult for some readers. Are there any free images available from any of his films that could be included in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs) 02:47, August 29, 2009 (UTC)

  [Commented on sortability above.] I considered joining the years like that but with Kimura having done so many films per year I'd almost need to enable cell borders to keep the distinctions clear. Beyond aesthetic reasons, I'd like to keep cell borders disabled as they make the list look a lot busier, which is especially a problem with so much Japanese text. I find it much more readable this way. I've un"small"ed the notes. Regarding free images, there's only a couple pre-1958 theatrical posters but they don't give any impression of Kimura's contributions nor are they for especially important films. I've been keeping an eye out for a free portrait but there's nothing doing at the moment. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tutorial If any brave souls are interested, I've devised what I believe to be the simplest method for Anglophones to verify the Japanese language sources, i.e., the three databases from which this list was culled. The learning curve here shouldn't be more than a couple minutes. I'm assuming you already have Japanese text support installed on your computer, if not: it's highly recommended. Basically, there are four elements to verify per film: the year, film title, director and Kimura's role. Year will be the easiest as they're all presented in Arabic numerals, with which we're all familiar. Title comes in three parts, the Japanese title (cut and pasted—my keyboard doesn't do kanji/kana), romanization (this is where any typos may be) and the English title. If you can figure out the title, you can figure out the director—and there's a lot fewer of them than films. Role should be a cakewalk.

A little about the databases:

• Kinema Junpo is the most comprehensive of the databases and my primary source. Films are listed in order of release date (though the main list displays the production date which occasionally varies from the release date, especially for the later films—Wikipedia (and I) go by release date) from newest to oldest, displayed ten per page. Clicking on the individual film titles will give you everything you need to know plus kana transliterations of the kanji title and, if you click on the director's name, kana readings for them too.
• The Japanese Movie Database has a number of pre-1945 films and circa 2004 films not listed (or missing Kimura's credit) on Kinema Junpo but omit a number of titles themselves and cut out entirely after 2004. A plus: they list the films from oldest to newest, categorize by Kimura's role as art director (with notes for specific job titles), writer, director or actor and contain the full release dates all on one page. Minus: no kana and you still have to click on the individual film pages to see the directors.
• Allcinema only lists a handful of titles not available on the other two (namely a TV movie, original video and anime film (which are all annotated) and one short film he directed) and is probably missing the most of the three. Also, their ordering system is all messed up. Films are listed by production year from newest to oldest but within each year they're listed by release date from oldest to newest. Still, they list his role for each film on the main page, you can find the release date on the individual film pages and kana spellings on individual director pages.

That established, let's verify this mother. Along with the list, I would recommend opening tabs for Google translate (set it to Japanese > English) and the three databases.[6][7][8] Or just first one if you prefer. Press ctrl+f to open your find bar (Firefox) or window (IE). Take a deep breath, put on some music and know that I love you for doing this. Now you're ready:

1. I'd start with the most recent films and work my way up, since Kinema Junpo made it a bit of a hassle to click through to his earliest films. Double click a Japanese title to highlight it, i.e., , then drag it to the find field. Tab over to Kinema Junpo page and click to find next or press ctrl+G. (Repeat on JMDb and allcinema as desired.) You've confirmed a Japanese title.
2. In the Kinema Junpo tab, click on the film title. The URL in the address bar isn't very useful with the Japanese text but you'll note a fully English URL in the middle of the page. Highlight that (be careful NOT to grab the "URL:" bit too) and copy it. Tab over to Google translate, paste that in the box and click translate. Under the main film title, in brackets on the far right, you'll see a block of letters. This is the romanization sans any spaces (Japanese text generally and notably lacks spacing). Caveat: Google translate is not perfect. For example, Japanese particles, for which the kana characters are sometimes pronounced and romanized differently than when the same characters are used in words. Most commonly, the characters ("ha") and ("wo") when used as particles—as they are in my example title above—are written as "wa" and "o". Also, words containing "ou" and "ei" are usually romanized with a macron instead, i.e., "ō" and "ē". For more information, see Help:Japanese. That in mind, this can be used to check my romanization for typos. If you'd like to check the spacing, googling (Google books preferred) the romanizations I've done should turn up some reliable sources confirming such. Or, more painfully, using translation tools such as Rikai and Denshi Jisho on the Japanese titles may help you determine the separate words for spacing. If you made it this far, you've confirmed a romanization. Also, you'll have noticed the year.
3. Some films don't have an English title, some do and some have a lot of them. Wikipedia goes by the most common one. The easiest way to figure this out is with Google books/regular Google. You'll want to search using the romanization—all writers worth their salt include an English and romanized original title for ease of identification.
4. For the Director, occasionally Google translate will get the name right. More likely, you'll have to go back to the Kinema Junpo tab and click on the director's name (names in a few instances) indicated by these characters: . It'll be down under the title in the left column, usually at the top of the list. Repeat step 2, copying the URL to Google translate. In Japanese, they list their family name first. The name separation (space) can again be confirmed by Rikai (hovering over the characters with your cursor will usually cause a box to appear around the full first or last name) or Google. Director down. One to go.
5. I lied, this probably doesn't qualify as a cakewalk. On allcinema, the role is listed to the right of the film title on the main page. On JMDb, if the title differs from the section title it will be listed on the far right. For Kinema Junpo, you'll probably have to click "see all" under the staff/cast list on the individual film articles. You'll be able to see what I'm talking about on a Google translated page but, unfortunately, it's the only "see all" that doesn't work on a translated page, though it does on the regular page. Art director is easy to identify because it will always start with the character, which usually represents beauty. It's a fairly common tattoo amongst the ladies. You can plug the full title into a translator or check it against this glossary. Most are just "fine arts" but, among the others, there are some contradictions between the databases. In such cases, I've gone with the more common one, Kinema Junpo or consulted official websites when available. Another caveat: some films have other art directors mostly in different capacities than Kimura. To identify Kimura's Japanese name, , either copy, paste and find, or, look for the one that starts with the symbol that looks sort of like a tree () and ends with one that looks like the one for beauty missing a couple lines (). You have just learned some Japanese.
6. Repeat 230 more times.

Well, as much as you feel inclined to do anyway. Otis Criblecoblis has graciously gone over the 1940s section, so your time would be best spent and most appreciated on the unreviewed portions. I thought this would be a shorter tutorial before I typed it out. And, really, the simplest way is to Google the romanized title and fairly often you'll find something to verify the film exists. Nikkatsu published screenplays for most of the stuff he did with them (1954–1973) which all show up with properly romanized titles at Google books. If anyone takes the plunge and has any questions, I'll be right here. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, you make writing articles sound like work... to hell with it, I'll go find something to delete! or maybe some vandalism to revert... :) No, I'll take another decade or two up for checking later on today-- starting with the '50s. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK-- I've checked the '50s, Art director section. I found one minor typo, which I corrected. I checked the transliterations mostly against the Japanese Cinema Database, which Doctor Sunshine (apparently) did not use-- to get a kind of cross-checking. I found this database to have the most complete listing of Kimura's filmography, lacking only one film: 恋の阿蘭蛇坂, which checked out at JMDB. JCDB did not give the art director credit in some of the earlier films, but these all check out at JMDB. I found several alternate English titles at JCDb. How accurate/official these are, I don't know, but the site is run by the Ministry of Education. For 雁 (Gan, 1953), they give the English title, Wild Geese.[9]; for 黒い潮 (1954, Kuroi shio), The Black Current[10]; for 緑はるかに (1955) The Green Music Box; 自分の穴の中で (1955) Each Within His Shell; 神阪四郎の犯罪 (1956) I am on Trial; 雑居家族 (1956) This is Home; 赤い波止場 (1958) Left Hand of Jiro; and for 硫黄島 (1959) The Ghost of Iwojima. The transliterations all look fine. I found a couple that had alternates-- in both cases JCDB gave both transliterations, so it's a matter of if you want to put an "also read as" in the article: For 春泥尼 (1958), JCDB transliterates both as Shundeini, which you have, and Shundeiama. For 爆薬に火をつけろ (1959), Dainamaito ni hi o tsukero, which you have, but also the literal Bakuyaku ni hi o tsukero.[11]... So far, so good. The '60s await. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I guess it shows that I wasn't coming at that from a very optimistic viewpoint. If what's-his-name can make writing an encyclopedia sound fun I should be able to make trolling (fishing metaphor, not the Internet slang sense) databases seem at least mildly interesting. I'll work on my pep talks.

Thanks again. I'd glanced at the JCDb but, looking again now, I hadn't realized it had so many films. 223 credited to Kimura and it's got a nicer layout than the others. Actaully, it looks like JMCb has the same info as Kinema Junpo. On a sample page the names and plot summary are identical. I started going through the three I have again but I'll vet that one next and then add it to the references as, at the very least, it's easier to navigate than Junpo. I've seen some of those titles before but I didn't want to overload the list with akas—some of them have 4 or 5 different English titles—so I went with the most common one, Gan was released in the States as The Mistress, for example, and when the articles get created I'll make redirects and add them to the article like so. For the alternate kana readings, I only came across a handful of those but I thought I might add those when the articles get created too, as seen here. I went with the Dainamaito reading as I've seen movie posters for other films of the same era with furigana using the loan word readings, i.e., Man with a Shotgun using shottogan instead of sandanjū. I think it was just the studio being hip. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just discovered this JCDb, and I'm loving it so far. I read somewhere in Jasper Sharp's Behind the Pink Curtain-- I've tried to find the page # to use as a citation, but have failed so far-- that JMDB bases its info on Kinema Junpo, which explains that correspondence. I think your position on the akas & alternate readings is perfectly reasonable. I usually try to put the aka's in filmographies until an article on the film has been started. Then I move all the detail/alternate stuff to the film article and strip out anything unnecessary from the filmographies. Anyway, I'll try to finish the '60s tomorrow. Looks great so far! Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK-- I've just checked the '60s, and they look fine, except for two entries I couldn't verify: 悪名高きろくでなし and 四つの恋の物語. I didn't find these in Kinejun, allcinema, JMDB or JCDB. I might have just missed them-- sometimes spacing throws off these searches. Or maybe they were from another source? I found three minor transliteration problems which I fixed. Also, should the second word in Tōkyō Nagaremono be capitalized? I didn't change this, but it looks like, according to your transliteration method, "nagaremono" should be lower-case. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the direct links to the Kinema Junpo entries for those two films.[12][13] You're right, it is Tōkyō nagaremono. For the Suzuki films on there I copied the romanizations from the articles—for which I'd done the romanizations years ago—but I failed to notice someone else had "fixed" Tokyo Drifter at some point. Anyway, I've corrected it on this list and the film article. I guess I wasn't as meticulous as I previously thought. Or at least I fell into brain neutral at various points doing the list. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, the '60s check out fine then. I'll take on the '70s as soon as I can. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The romanized title should use the same capitalization rules as an English-language title. See WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media where it states that "capitalization should be conventional". The title should be romanized as Tōkyō Nagaremono as the last word is a noun and nouns in titles are capitalized in English. Perhaps WP:MOS-JA needs to have some clarification on that point put into it, but this has been the standard practice since we created WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... If this is true, it might be one of those cases where "consensus" is wrong... I just checked several scholarly film books, and most have the romaji titles in lower case... Maybe this isn't the proper forum for this-- and I'd probably avoid the correct forum for it-- but how was "consensus" achieved? Anonymous non-expert editors voting from "gut-feeling" based on who argued better? Or reference to scholarly sources? I don't know about the Doc, and not to start up a controversy here, but I'd be willing to never have an article stamped "Featured content" if it meant doing things against scholarly convention in order to please "Consensus"... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I also have several scholarly books which have all but the first word in lowercase. But I have several other scholarly books which use standard capitalization as well. There is no consensus among scholarly (or other) works on which should be used, so we picked the one which seemed to make the most sense (use the same capitalization as would be standard in an English title). Please don't whack consensus like it's some horrible ugly stepchild. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't whack ugly stepchildren, but I do vocally disagree with mobs who are in the wrong... and around here, it's "consensus"-- a very loaded and inaccurate term-- in whose name a great deal of the whacking is done. Anyway, sorry for side-tracking the discussion. The decision is Doc's to make. Cheers! Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted, this would be a relatively minor change to the list, but I've been doing it this way for about three years—including for a 2007 FAC—and this format is fairly uniform across Japanese film articles. Originally based on a policy, guideline or WP:Film discussion I cannot now locate. The WP:Japan guideline is definitely not clear as it seems to be addressing tildes and allcaps. I appreciate the desire to keep style consistent across Japanese articles but, to take both a wider and more narrow view, across foreign film articles the capitalization systems of each language are used (maybe that could be stated more clearly at WP:NCF too). Amazingly, one of the first extra-wiki guidelines on the matter Google turns up uses this exact example.[14] I agree with Otis that this may not be the place to discuss this—also, not exactly looking forward to a guideline discussion—but I'd argue that this is the common method for capitalizing Japanese language film titles, only many scholars opt out and use the English method the same way the vast majority opt out on using macrons (I've only seen one film book that uses macrons, and that's a 20 year old Dutch-English book that accompanied a Dutch film retrospective, despite its ubiquity here in Japanese film–related articles). Plus, it's easier as most editors are unlikely to be able to identify the nouns, let alone identify and understand what particles are. Anyway, I'd prefer to keep this list as is but I'm open to guideline revisions/clarifications. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd hoped to finish up the checking today, but "real life" keeps interrupting. Anyway, I checked rest of the "Art director" credits, but not the title transliterations. I came up with more that I couldn't verify right away (and I haven't had time to look around). If you can point me right to them, Doc, then we can consider that part complete. I couldn't find these films:

• 杜子春
• 妖怪天国
• フィガロ・ストーリー
• 冬の河童
• オペレッタ　狸御殿
• 馬頭琴夜想曲
• 人のセックスを笑うな
• 東京大空襲
• 小森生活向上クラブ
• クローンは故郷をめざす

And I couldn't find Kimura's credits in these films:

• 誰がために
• るにん
• ガッツ伝説　愛しのピット・ブル
• 紙屋悦子の青春
• 無花果の顔
• 火垂るの墓

Again, I've been pretty pressed for time today, and didn't check all the databases-- I was just using JMDB and JCDB, so they're probably easily located at one of the others (or at one of these, but I just missed them). I'll try to finish the transliteration-checking tomorrow. Regards. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I haven't had a lot of time to get through them again myself. I'll link to the individual film articles for each title below.

• 杜子春allcinema
• 妖怪天国allcinema
• フィガロ・ストーリーKineJunallcinema
• 冬の河童KineJunallcinema
• オペレッタ　狸御殿KineJunallcinema
• 馬頭琴夜想曲KineJunallcinema
• 人のセックスを笑うなKineJunallcinema
• 東京大空襲allcinema
• 小森生活向上クラブKineJunallcinema
• クローンは故郷をめざすKineJunallcinema

• 誰がためにKineJunallcinema (Only credited on the latter but kana reading still available on former)
• るにんKineJunallcinema
• ガッツ伝説　愛しのピット・ブルKineJunallcinema
• 紙屋悦子の青春KineJunallcinema
• 無花果の顔KineJunallcinema
• 火垂るの墓KineJunallcinema

The readings all check out on my end. 'Though, checking the official site for Princess Raccoon it's in concurrence with allcinema and it shouldn't have the space between the katakana and kanji as it does on Kinema Junpo. Fixed that. One problem I'm having with the Japanese Cinema Database, it's not giving me an address I can link to. There's no dedicated filmography page and the address bar on the search results page isn't giving me anything linkable. Even when I get an address by copying link location from his name on one of the film pages, it times out when I try to load that link by punching it into the address bar. Might be a problem turning it into a reference. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright-- whew! I've gone through the whole list, over the past week or so, and I pass it for accuracy as far as credits and titles. You are hereby presented with the Otis Criblecoblis Seal of Approval, Doc. Use it wisely :) Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, about JCDB. Yes, the lack of person profiles is a major drawback. I've just been using it in conjunction with the others-- JMDb is the best to start with, for putting the filmography together, then check & add from the others. No address you can link to? You mean to people, right? I've had no trouble linking to films entries. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You rock. Thanks very much for doing that. It's a tremendous amount of information to go through and if I should try anything like this again I promise to make it a much lazier filmmaker. :) Yeah, I could not figure out a way to link to people. I suppose I don't need to add a fourth general reference to the list but I've already added JCDb to my arsenal. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized this was Feature review rather than Good (which, I believe, only has one reviewer). Anyway, if my position above wasn't clear: The lead looks fine to me, and, after reviewing the filmography, my vote is Support. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent list that I'm more than happy to support. All of my concerns have been addressed and then some. I feel much better now that it's been looked over by someone who speaks the language. Otis rocks! Drewcifer (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I feel a lot better too. In turn, I'll support your assertion that Otis rocks. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • The lead states "his debut film is Umi no yobu koe", yet the list has three films before Umi no yobu koe.
  • The first three films listed in the "art director" section have a note stating that Takeo was an art assistant, is that correct? Some films have "A" notes that state he was an art director? This is really confusing, I believe the section title should be changed.
  • per 5a, there should be at least one table. I don't see any tables, where are the borders?
  • What does gray color represent? I mean why Umi no yobu koe has a gray background for example and You Shall Marry doesn't?
  • Why aren't most of the film titles translated? If there is a reason, it should be mentioned in the lead.
  • Under the "japanese" column, there's "ＺＩＰＡＮＧ" and it's romanized as "Jipangu". Why? I am pretty sure Z I P A N G are not japanese letters.
  • This page lists films where Takeo Kimura was involved, yet most of those films are red-linked. What should readers do if they want to know more about the films? Do we send them to google? There's no problem of having red links in Wikipedia pages because it helps build this encyclopedia, as it is stated in WP:REDLINK. Adding a bronze star and exemplifying a list of red links as the best Wikipedia can offer is a mockery to our readers.
  • Why are most of the directors not linked at all? For example , I just clicked on the "1970s" section from Table of contents, I see this name "Koreyoshi Kurahara", but it's not linked, so I can reasonably assume that Koreyoshi Kurahara is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Out of curiousity, I searched Koreyoshi Kurahara and found this page.

Overall a lot of misleading info on this page with many accessibility issues.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review.

• I've rewritten the lead slightly to make it more clear that it was his debut as a full art director, not an assistant.
• In all sources he's described as an art director. The job titles are all variations on art director—while his capacity on each film may have varied slightly it was fundamentally the same job. I kept them in one category, the same way they're listed on JMDb, for clarity and ease of navigation.
• They're all tables. I removed the borders as they made the list appear too busy and affected readability.
• The alternating grey and white is there to help the reader follow the information across each row more easily.
• Film titles not translated haven't been translated by any reliable sources. It seems like one of those obvious statements like "This is a list of..." that are generally frowned upon in featured lists now.
• For ZIPANG, that's the official Japanese spelling of the title and Jipangu is how Japanese sources romanize the title.
• On redlinks, yes, they'll have to go to another source if they want more information but at least Wikipedia has stoked that interest and given them the info they need to search elsewhere—that's worth some goodwill. If we're lucky they'll come back after and write an article. Since, as you say, there's nothing wrong with red links they should be retained. Also, since there's nothing wrong with them, they have no bearing on the quality of this list. There are hundreds of editors working on American films but only a handful working on Japanese films, red links are thus going to be more common on the latter. It seems unreasonable that an editor focusing on an underrepresented topic should be expected to write hundreds of articles before they can have a list like this assessed.
• The director names are only linked at the first usage per section, to avoid overlinking. I could add another link per subsection but, as it stands now, it has the added benefit of subtly highlighting his first collaboration with each director.

Hope that helps. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is fine

As I've already mentioned the "art director" section has a really confusing title. How do you find it easy to navigate is beyond me. That's really hard to navigate to me when on every step I see a misleading and confusing info.

Without borders, the list is really unreadable, it's hard to see which words are located on which columns. Borders are needed here.

In Wikipedia's lists, a background of a different color is used to indicate something. Alternating the colors here really makes a regular reader confused as to what the gray background means.

As for the translation, are you saying you couldn't find any more translations? OR maybe they were not translated for the English audience?

For ZIPANG, can you add a citation explaining that?

Any regular Wikipedia page can have red links. No featured material should have any red links. It's simple as that. Featured means the best Wikipedia can offer, red links are not the best Wikipedia can offer.

At FAC, WP:RED is considered an invalid reason to oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree: there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and WP:RED echoes this. In fact, red links are a good thing! Drewcifer (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

At FAC, all the articles nominated are about one subject and all red links are considered secondary; that's why it's OK to have red links there. At FLC, any list has a certain number of items, not one. All links to those items are considered primary and should be available to the reader. Having the directors here as red links is OK because directors are secondary. The films are the ones taht are primary.--Cheetah (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding links per subsection is really a good idea!

--Cheetah (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to butt in a little here too: Doc could probably make up translations, but this would constitute Original Research, and so has provided translations only when they are available at Reliable Sources. Nothing wrong with this, I don't think. The ZIPANG transliteration is standard, it follows the same format as the kanji / kana titles-- i.e. it gives the Japanese pronunciation-- and, again, is provided by Reliable Sources. Doc has just provided this transliteration on the list. I see no need to make a notation to this effect. About the difficult in in reading/navigating the table, frankly, I'm baffled. It looks much neater to me than the lined tables, and I've been converting my own lined tables to this format, which I find much better. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to make up anything. I am just wondering whether all available translations are listed. I believe a note of some kind is needed for ZIPANG because that's the only Japanese title that uses latin letters, which raises an eyebrow. As for the difficulty in reading, are you saying that borders make tables look messy?--Cheetah (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was coming across the translations at the sources I checked-- the sources which are cited in the article. I didn't check specifically to make sure Doctor Sunshine had copied them all, but those I checked were correct. The use of Latin characters in titles has become something of a fad in Japan more recently, and it is standard to include the Japanese readings with them. About the lined tables: Yes, I think the extra lines make the format look "busier" and clunkier. The light, alternating bands make following one film across the screen easier to me. In either case, it's a personal formatting preference, not a content/verifiability issue, and not one on which I would pass or fail. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheetah, I'm a little confused on what's confusing you. He art directed all of those films. In the references, there are two Japan Times articles by Mark Schilling which state that Kimura has art directed over 200 films—these are them. The notes specify variations in the job title but they all fall under the general field of art direction. I don't have any sources to explain the variation, but I suspect much of it is similar to how Selznick changed the art director's credit to "production designer" on Gone with the Wind and it gained some popularity. The title just morphed over time. And, sometimes, his role involved the supervision or consultation of the art direction. I don't see what's so baffling about it.

On formatting, I find it a much more clear without the borders, there's plenty of space separating the columns. Maybe if you could explain the problem more clearly? The grey/white rows thing is a common convention, you'll see it on most discographies and plenty of places outside of Wikipedia. Regarding the translations, you're correct. Those are all of the translations I could find and many of these films, especially the early ones, have likely not been shown outside of Japan nor have the titles been translated. Regarding ZIPANG again, Otis is correct, English letters do appear quite often in Japanese print—there are actually about half a dozen films on this list with English lettering—but they pronounce it differently. I'm not really sure how I'd site that, it's just how they do things.

There is nothing anywhere that says featured content cannot have red links. In fact, they stamped that notion out at FAC a couple years ago.[15] Since Wikipedia will always be a work in progress, see WP:NOTDONE, redlinks help illustrate where the project has room to grow. Also, I've gone ahead and added the director links on a subsection basis. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe "Art director" is a wrong title for that section because he was an "art director" for ~20 of those films. I'd suggest the title to be just "Art" because, as it's noted on the page, Takeo was an art director/assistant/producer etc. OR If you want to leave the "art director" section, then you need to add seperate sections for "art producer", "art assistant", etc, which I believe will be one too many sections. Simplest way to avoid confusion is to change the title from "art director" to something more general.

As for the formatting, I guess it depends on the resolution you're using. Bigger resolution, more space separating columns; smaller resolution, less space.

At WP:FL?, it says that featured lists should have "a minimal proportion of red links". I see 90% of the items are red links here in this filmography. Ninety percent is not a minimal proportion.--Cheetah (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's what the filmography would look like if the wikitable format were used: link Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The only step that needs to be done after that is to remove those section breaks and use <span id=19x0s" /> instead. That will make the table look more professional.--Cheetah (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In every source, he's known for his art direction, he's called an art director, the most clear and accurate section title is art director. In the Japanese Movie Database's filmographies, they sort the films by job titles. The art director section contains all the art related film credits. Art producer is more art than producer, otherwise they would have put it in a producer section. I'm not going to invent a new categorization system for this list. Everything is called what it is.

I've shrunk my browser down to nothing and for the entire trip I didn't have any trouble distinguishing the columns, maybe I shouldn't say "plenty" but there's enough space and each column is aligned. Not to mention each column is quite distinctive, numbers, blue or red text, Japanese text, black text, and mostly coloured text again. Maybe this is just a matter of not being able to please everyone but I've put a lot of time, thought and effort into not just the list but the aesthetic too and I'm happy with it. You may have to trust me on this but the Japanese text is a lot easier to decipher without the borders too.

"Minimal" is a flexible term. I couldn't even make a dent in that 90% and the guideline says they shouldn't be removed so they're about as minimal as they're going to get. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do about them, create 300 stubs? I'm sorry but that's just not possible. And what's so bad about the colour red anyway? It's the colour of roses and Ferraris... but I digress. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd take one more whack at this as I'd really like your support. I don't know how familiar you are with job titles in film but in the English language "art director" is a very common, where if "art" was used it could mean almost anything. In Japan "art" seems to have been used for the same title through the 40s, 50s and 60s especially, but they've clearly adopted a number of terms, including "art director", to replace it. Today, in English and Japanese sources, art director is how he's know and defines his role in the vast majority of his films. For the cell borders, is it possible it's not displaying correctly on your screen? Do you have any trouble reading the track listing in the Mule Variations article, for example? And for the red links, the guideline states that they are a good thing. The "minimal" bit here is contentious and red link opposes have been vetoed at FAC. You haven't stated what it is you don't like about them. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)