Talk:Fires on the Plain (1959 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed

Final scene[edit]

Hi everyone. I just edited the end of the "plot" section about the final scene, to delete what appeared to me to be speculation about whether Tamura was shot dead. According to film commentaries I have read, and the interviews/etc. on the recently released DVD from Criterion, Tamura is indeed shot dead at the end of the film. This, of course, is a change from the book, where he is rescued and taken to a hospital and then a sanitorium, and we find out some of his backstory, which is nonexistent in the film. On the other hand, I concede that the final scene of the film could be considered ambiguous, so my edit says he is "apparently" dead. Also, I think the "plot" section should include a spoiler warning, but I don't know how to do this, so request a non-Luddite to kindly do so. Z Wylld 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re rated[edit]

This meets requirements for start status. I was told this by a professional editor, and it was on the re-evaluation article. Please contact me if you wish to change it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If were told this by a "professional" editor, that editor should be the one to change it. I've changed it back to stub. Go through the start check list in the box, and show that it meets all of the qualifications. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the guys name, but trust me, he did say that. If I could get to the article that lists down requests for re evaluation (I cant find it anymore) I would be able to tell you the his/her name. By the way if you could tell me what needs to be added to the article I would jump on it. (Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see anything in your contribs that shows such a check. The criteria are noted above, but to note the ones specifically missing:
  • Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.).
The current lead is two sentences. Check the film MOS for more detailed discussion on what a lead section should contain.
  • At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.)
This one is more iffy and I'd probably go up to start if the lead is taken care of, however they are not really "developed" as the Reception section is almost entirely unsourced or its all from one sourced which means its giving undue weight to a single person's opinion. The awards section is also lacking any references. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont mind I will delete this "re rated" section, as it is of little use to most people. however I will wait until you make sure you dont want to say anything else for some reason. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the section should not be deleted. That would be inappropriate. It does deal with the article topic, and provides explanation for the reverse of the rating, etc. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at an older version of wikiprojectfilms/assesment and you said that this was a start article. You wont believe this at first but if you compare the current version with the version titled 'yojimbo501 fires on the plain reassesment', you can see that you said this article met start requirements. you must have later commented that it was a mistake however, but that is why I made this to start. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did? Hmm...odd...okay, I feel dumb then. If I assessed it to start, I wonder why I didn't set it. Too much stress this week...okay....changes it back and goes to be quite for awhile. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody give this proper ref tags?[edit]

I did it to one of the references but when I did it to the next it screwed up the article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother responding, I know how to do it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts following first reading[edit]

The article is well-written and readable. Some minor points is to avoid overlinking and linking common words. The use of the lengthy quotes for critical reviews is also an area which may have to be revisted. I'll come back to this again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Private or Private First Class?[edit]

Though I am fully aware that I might be the only editor who tries to improve this article daily, I will post this concern anyways: In the scene where Tamura meets a group of three soldier (note: you will not find this scene in the plot section, because I thought it wasn't notable. If you think it's notable just specify in your edit or ask me to include it.) He introduces himself as Pfc. (Private First Class) Tamura, though it mentions early in the plot section that he is a private and mentions later (cast) that he is a Pfc. Would it just be overspecific if we made the first paragraph in the plot say that he's actually a Pfc? Should the cast section even include ranks? Regardless of weather or not it should, I'm taking out the part of the cast section which says Nagamatsu and Yasuda are private's, because I was taking that from memory, and since I'm not sure it is misleading. Yojimbo501 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To me the point is that Tamura is something of an "everyman." So I don't think it matters whether Tamura is a private or pfc., in any sense (the plot, the characters' relationships, to anyone not in the military, etc.). But I admire your attention to detail...  :) Z Wylld (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It isn't much of an issue, but nonetheless it was a concern. Since I can't speak much for Japanese millitary ranks, I think it will be fine if we just leave it as it is, and I've removed mention of him being a Pfc (so that it isn't confusing), and mention of Nagamatsu or Yasuda being private's, as I can't speak for there ranks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiro Hamaguchi[edit]

The above directs to a olympic sports medalist. Should it be made to relink to an actor page? Did he actually play the person (I suppose it's possible)? Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fires on the Plain (1959 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fires on the Plain (1959 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word “contradition” an error in the quoted material or an error in transcription?[edit]

Any ideas, please? Wprlh (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fires_on_the_Plain_(1959_film)&oldid=1202014073"