Talk:Memories of Matsuko

Spoiler warning

This current plot description is above and beyond a mere description and hence Sethie thinks a spoiler warning is needed. Please comment here. Sethie 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked the spoiler tags, too. Unfortunately, there is an overwhelmingly powerful, elitist, fast-moving, technically adept cabal of editors who think otherwise. See WP:SPOILER and its related talk page. — WiseKwai 07:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The guideline allows a spoiler tag to be placed, if a compelling reason exists for doing so. I've read the plot: there are no surprises there and this is clearly the kind of film that derives its effect from the cinematography and storytelling rather than plot tricks. Why is the tag necessary on this article? --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for dropping by and being willing to discuss... Sethie keeps bumping into editors who are unwilling to discuss this policy and just remove tags.

Ummmm no surprises? No plot tricks? Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Matsuko's romance with Ryu is quite unexpected, her reconnection with someone who betrayed her deeply, who in fact earlier in the movie sets of a chain of events which appear to have "ruined" her life. As for his departure not being a surprise... well, before the departure, the viewer is left with the idea- "AT LAST! She has found true love," which, in the movie she has been searching for for the last hour and a half, and then he leaves her as well."

Regardless, the overall theme of the movie is Amelie-esque and depends on shock value, things happen unexpectadly almost in a surreal way.

There is no warning of abuse from her various "men" it just happens with no warning in the film. It even happens when she seems to have found a "nice guy." There is a musical number about how happy she is to be with him and then wham! he is smacking her.

That she ends up in prison? That she ends up in the sex-trade? As someone who has watched the movie- Sethie can clearly say- all of those items are definatly spoilers.

Even that there is a timeline! The movie does not go in linear time. Sethie 17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this may be surprising from the point of view of Matsuko, and possibly even the viewer. But is this kind of plot device so surprising? Would it harm the reader to learn that this movie is rather more interesting than might appear at first sight? --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie finds your questions interesting and would be willing to dialogue about them later on... for now:

"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many reers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work."

The subject is fictional.

Sethie doesn't see the tag as diminishing the article quality- and you haven't raised that as an issue yet.

Sethie believes he has made a very strong case that it would substantually diminish the viewer's enjoyment of the work.

Again, truly and from the heart, thanks for dialoguing.Sethie

I'm really not convinced by the case for the spoiler warning here. The movie does not seem a "twist" movie by any stretch of the imagination, the movie has been out for a while, and in general, I don't see a pressing need here.

Also, please stop referring to yourself in the third person. Phil Sandifer 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by and being willing to discus, Phil.

"The movie does not seem a "twist" movie by any stretch of the imagination" Sethie neither agrees nor disagrees with this and more importantly doesn't feel the pull to discuss that issue, since it isn't an issue per WP:SPOILER. Sethie 01:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, the plot synopsis is supposed to describe plot details. If it doesn't, the article has failed. There's no need to put up a warning for what the section is supposed to contain. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for dropping by and being willing to discuss. Per WP:SPOILER ""Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many reers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work"

While Sethie appreciates your concerns about articles "failing" and that doesn't seem to be a part of the policy right now and not a reason to not use a spoiler.

Out of a desire for harmony and not to start an edit war, Sethie will give you time to reply before putting the tag back in.Sethie 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To all who wish to challenge the inclusion of a spoiler tag

Please refference the actual policy, as it is written. Sethie 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have - the onus is on you, as the person proposing a spoiler tag, to present a compelling reason for the tag's existence. Please do so. Phil Sandifer 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"The movie does not seem a "twist" movie by any stretch of the imagination" Sethie neither agrees nor disagrees with this and more importantly doesn't feel the pull to discuss that issue, since it isn't an issue per WP:SPOILER.

Sethie has met all of the criteria for inclusion of a spoiler tag, and will give you a few days to provide reasons via WP:SPOILER for it's non-inclusion, if not he will put it back in. Sethie 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER doesn't give any hard-and-fast criteria that guarantee a spoiler tag is acceptable - it describes some places where they might be acceptable, but it is still up to authors on an article-by-article basis to decide whether to include them. Why exactly did you think they were needed here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for actually refferencing the actual policy, other then myself, Sethie believes you are the first such person to enter the disucssion on this page to do so.

Truly, thanks.

Sethie has posted once his proposed reasons why, then he copied and pasted it again for another user, now he will create a section so that it is crystal clear, ok? Sethie 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Just reverted to an earlier version per WP:CP due to a large amount of copyrighted text added by someone in March. The text appears to have been taken from [1], which was archived at [2] prior to the text being added to this article. I'll try to re-add the infobox and stuff like that in the next few minutes. Try to keep an eye out for these sorts of issues in the future. --- RockMFR 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The point regarding the spoiler warning is no longer "moot," as there is now a summary which does not violate copyright. The same issues regarding spoilers remain.zadignose 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Addition of Spoiler Tag

Matsuko's romance with Ryu is quite unexpected, her reconnection with someone who betrayed her deeply, who in fact earlier in the movie sets of a chain of events which appear to have "ruined" her life. As for his departure not being a surprise... well, before the departure, the viewer is left with the idea- "AT LAST! She has found true love," which, in the movie she has been searching for for the last hour and a half, and then he leaves her as well."

Regardless, the overall theme of the movie is Amelie-esque and depends on shock value, things happen unexpectadly almost in a surreal way.

There is no warning of abuse from her various "men" it just happens with no warning in the film. It even happens when she seems to have found a "nice guy." There is a musical number about how happy she is to be with him and then wham! he is smacking her.

That she ends up in prison? That she ends up in the sex-trade? As someone who has watched the movie- Sethie can clearly say- all of those items are definatly spoilers.

"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many reers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work."

The subject is fictional.

Sethie doesn't see the tag as diminishing the article quality- and you haven't raised that as an issue yet.

Sethie believes he has made a very strong case that it would substantially diminish the viewer's enjoyment of the work.

re-posted onSethie 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're quoting one part of the guideline without reading another. See this: "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire 'Plot' or 'Synopsis' heading, or fictional 'History' headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional, since spoilers are to be expected in a plot summary". This very much seems to be the case here: large spoilers are all contained in one section clearly titled "Synopsis". JimmyBlackwing 03:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Sethie that the spoiler alert tag should be included. It doesn't harm Wikipedia and is respectful to people who are interested in the article but don't yet know the plot points of the story. --Parzival418 _Hello 11:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't feel the spoiler tag is called for in the Plot section. I didn't see any plot twists like you find in THE PRESTIGE, THE OTHER, THE CRYING GAME, STALAG 17, etc. Understand that what new spoiler guideline proponents are asserting is that within the context of the Plot section, details will be divulged. The spoiler tag there is redundant and generally not supported.
  
  As Sethie had requested third party opinion on this, David :) took the opportunity to chime in. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please show us where the WP:SPOILER says plot twists are neccesary for spoiler warnings????? Sethie 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha, you just proved my point. If there are no significant plot revelations that would "spoil" the surprise for the reader, then the Plot section heading is sufficient to advise the reader that plot details will follow. And so ... no spoiler notice needed. I think this perspective has been sufficiently hashed out on the guideline's Talk page and reflected in the guideline. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a movie is built around a plot "twist" doesn't seem largely relevant, as the guideline doesn't suggest any unique treatment for such films (and I don't personally see why such shallow plot structures should deserve special consideration). Similarly, the guideline is too vague to distinguish between those "usual" cases where a spoiler warning is redundant, and those unusual cases where it is not. Perhaps it should expressly state that spoiler warnings are never to be used for synopsis or plot sections. As it is, the wording of our guideline hints at the possibility of exceptions, without offering any guidance on which cases are exceptional.zadignose 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Borderline

The spoiler guideline has changed radically over the past few years. Personally, I would certainly put the warning on this article, but that reflects my experience of older versions of the guideline I think, and familiarity with the multitude of articles that still follow them. Under current guidelines it is borderline at best.

No consensus is likely, so my view is that it doesn't matter either way. Perhaps some reflection on WP:POINT would also be useful, but overall I think the behaviour here has been admirable. Andrewa 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline as it is now is disputed and in flux. There is no Wikipedia policy that excludes spoiler alerts. The only policy question is - do the editors working on this page consense the inclusion of the spoiler alert?

If the editors on this page form WP:CONSENSUS to alert the readers to the spoilers, that satisfies Wikipedia policy and allows the inclusion of the alerts, in my most humble opinion.

And, as regards consensus for this particular article, I would prefer the spoiler alerts to be included. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As would I. But I think that WP:SPOILER is against us...

• Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire "Plot" or "Synopsis" heading, or fictional "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional, since spoilers are to be expected in a plot summary. Spoiler tags may be permissible in a subsection of a "Plot" heading, where there is consensus that the spoiler is particularly significant.
• Spoiler warnings should not be used when they can be replaced by more accurate heading information. If a "Themes" heading starts with a plot description, the best thing to do is break the plot description into a separate heading. If there are no headings, it is usually better to add them.

The tenor of this, and of the entire project page, is that where you expect plot details, there's no need for a spoiler warning. I actually disagree with this... I think that, where there is an unexpected twist to the plot, there should be a warning on the whole section. Even that spoils it a little, but to put the spoiler warning right at the point in the synopsis where the spoiler occurs is pointless... it gives half the game away. And I'd also err on the side of adding the warning: An unnecessary spoiler warning does little harm, while a missing one is considered very rude indeed in normal netiquette, and I don't think Wikipedia should be exempted from this.

But there is also a flag on the page saying that the whole guideline is disputed... and IMO this is likely to remain thus for some time! The changes that are in progress to these and several other guidelines and policies reflect a general trend towards a more academic (and to me less appealing) style that is evident throughout Wikipedia. Will this continue, or will it swing back? Who knows? Andrewa 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

guidlines are not policy

WP:SPOILER is a guideline, not a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, a much stronger statement.

Here is the definition of Wikipedia Guidlines, from the page Category:Wikipedia guidelines:

Guidelines are a set of rules and recommendations that are supported by consensus and should generally be followed, but unlike policies are not mandatory and subject to the occasional exception.

Here is the definitiion of Wikipedia Policies, from the page Wikipedia:List of policies:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered standards that all users should follow.

I believe that the editors working on this article have the right to create a consensus for the article according to Wikipedia policy, and that the guidline about spoilers should be respectfully considered in doing so. But I do not believe that the spoiler guideline must be followed over and above the consensus, if the editors here don't agree with the guideline.

In this situation, that's especially important, because the guideline itself does not have consensus. That makes it a very weak guideline indeed. It means that today it can say one thing and tomorrow another. So how are the editors here to follow a disputed guideline?

In my humble opinion, it would be "firm and correct" (a term from the I Ching), to follow the policy first, and then, if the guideline fits our understanding of the policy, then follow the guideline too.

Since the guidline itself does not yet really know what should be done with the spoiler alerts on this article, I recommend that the editors here make up their own minds and make it a good article to the best of our abilities. If that means including a spoiler alert, then one should be included, if and only if, the editors here develop a real consensus for that.

As far as the guideline itself, I still am not sure why some people don't like the spoiler alerts. But apparently there are many who don't like them.

So my recommendation is to minimize their use, but, if you believe they should be present, go ahead and use them. Use them in a way that keeps the article well-written and organized, but don't omit them just because a guideline that is in a state of change tells you to omit them.

If you do include them, make sure you have a section here on the talk page where you indicate that you have consensus for it. And if some disagree, discuss and address the issues. This is important so that challenges that come later can be addressed by showing the documentation of the consensus.

In summary - those are my interpretations of the policies and how they apply to this situation, as I see it in good faith. Further comments are welcome. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to debate in favor of a spoiler notice on this article, please don't hand-craft notices to avoid detection.[3]. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the requirement to use a template, rather than a hand-crafted notice is quite unique and questionable in itself, still I think we should honor the general intent of the guideline.zadignose 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Shall this article have a spoiler alert?

Statement of the problem

• Some editors have stated the article should have a spoiler alert if there is a consensus for it. The guidline WP:SPOILER is unclear because it is currently under dispute, therefore WP:CONSENSUS should be followed in preference.

• Some editors have stated that WP:SPOILER should be followed as it is and that they intepret it to suggest the spoiler alert should be omitted.

Please enter comments below

Include. I believe that the spoiler alert should be included, in an appropriate and careful manner, covering only the plot points that would damage the experience of the film for a first time viewer. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Include. I believe that the spoiler alert should be included, and that if this contravenes guidelines, the guidelines should be changed. But I don't think it's necessary to wait for the guidelines to be changed to add the spoiler warning, especially in view of the ongoing discussion regarding these guidelines. Andrewa 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [Forgive the intrusion,... I re-edited your comment to add the word "include" at the beginning based on the content of your comment. If you don't want that word there, please feel free to remove it. --Parzival418 _Hello 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)]

Include Per WP:SPOILER: ""Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many reers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work."

The subject is fictional. Sethie doesn't see how the tag is diminishing the article quality, and Sethie believes he has made a very strong case that it would substantially diminish the viewer's enjoyment of the work. Not a single editor has responded to any of these criteria of the actual current policy and hence they should be included and any removal of them that does not address the actual policy should be reverted. Sethie 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there are only "include" entries here, I have added the notice. Please check and see if you agree with where I put it. You are welcome to move it if you prefer it appear elsewhere. --Parzival418 _Hello 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article clearly doesn't need a spoiler tag, per WP:SPOILER and common sense. I'm not removing it at the moment, but eventually someone will. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that until I came along, there was a clear consensus over 4 days' discussion to include it. That actually satisfies the guideline (and arguments of anti-spoiler editors) that consensus on teh Talk page is sufficient to including one. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit The Plot section can be reasonably expected to have all details of the plot, without further disclaimers. As WP is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are comprehensive (by definition => Oxford Concise Dictionary, 11th ed.) and can be expected to have a cogent, complete plot description. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit per well-stated and well-articulated reasons, and consistency with other articles. Phil Sandifer 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Omit A filmed tale is ideally told by the screenwriter and the director, and anyone else divulging key points is usurping that task. Few people want their food prechewed. However, this film is structurally an homage to Citizen Kane. If "Kane" goes without a spoiler warning, this film should as well. However, since this film has not yet been widely seen in North America (Netflix doesn't even have it), I think the synopsis should be less detailed.Bustter (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memories of Matsuko. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108232657/http://kiraware.goo.ne.jp/ to http://kiraware.goo.ne.jp/

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) 15:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)