Talk:Whisper of the Heart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image wrong

The image associated with this page is the wrong image. That image is off howls moving castle, not whisper of the heart. If I can find a cc image, I'll change it. In the meantime if anyone else does ... (or I forget :-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallBiscuit (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

the image is a direct shot from the movie "Whisper of the Heart" at 1:13:34 on either the DVD or BluRay. The large red writing at the top right says "MiminoSumaseba" which is the title of Whisper of the Heart in Japanese 92.148.172.89 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the image about the Whisper of the Heart is actually the film's Japanese promotional poster. Make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm - yes, that's what I pointed out here on the talk page three times. however you and/or Edward DELETED THESE COMMENTS over and over. To be clear, and to repeat, you and/or Edward have wholesale DELETED THE TALK PAGE over and over. 92.148.172.89 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I had to remove the earlier comments of deleting this section, as it is completely unacceptable to delete other users' comments, so I did that per the relevant guidelines at WP:TPO. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Could this section be archived, as it meets all the usual requirements for archiving? 90.40.194.13 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Article issues

All right. There are some serious issues going on here in the article:

• 1. The article needs sourcing from various reliable websites, books and reviews.
• 2. An IP hopper from France has insisted that the edits he/she has done are correct. However, I and Edward321 (talk · contribs), strongly disagree with this. These include seemingly disruption of the talk page to illustrate a point, using all-caps in the edit summaries (which are incivil), and clearly violating the neutral point of view policy by adding personal interpretations of the characters.

As I do not want to edit war here, I am taking the WP:BRD route to see if anyone can voice their opinions on the matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you mean by "IP Hopper". Are you just trying to be rude? Why? Yes or no - is one allowed to be anonymous on Wikipedia? the answer is of course "Yes". If so, what's your actual name instead of just an internet nickname?

I don't want to get into arguments here. But please note that

• The "custom of the country" (Wikipedia) is to sign talk posts with one's user ID: i.e., most users do it.
• In fact it is close to being "the law of the land": see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

(Sorry for inserting this into your comment, but it seemed best to me to put this right after the single point I'm discussing.) Thnidu (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a number of points in the description were totally incorrect and completely unsourced "urban myths" in the earlier article (such as the total nonsense about "Disney requiring a different ending" and so on) - anyone who has seen the film would realise it was just wrong. You insist that "yourself and Edward" strongly disagree with this. But you have not changed it back to the earlier, incorrect information. Another good example is the section titled "Sequel". You can simply look up what "Sequel" means in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with a "sequel". It is a "spin-off" or some sort of related movie. Can you simply STATE something that I "claimed was wrong" that was not in fact wrong? That is a very very straightforward question. Can you STATE one issue that you and Edward "strongly disagree" with? You seem to have a panic about the fact that I had to "SHOUT" in caps a few times to get some attention from "Edward". the problem was, Edward was simply reverting anything else anyone would do. Do you understand that that sort of behavior is not really the right approach on Wiki? It's worth noting that you have now completely rewritten the description, for no reason. Your writing style is choppy, not very smooth (just one oerson's opinion of course) - the previous version which built up over time was really quite good. But the point is you've simply swapped one totally acceptable description article, for another one written by yourself - with no real discernible reason or difference. Are "yourself and Edward" desperate for "ownership" of this page? Or? Is it a common problem on wikipedia that you get fans who really "want ownership" of a particular page? It all seems a bit strange. Anyway, I am standing by, all ears, ready for you to STATE one specific issue that you and Edward "strongly disagree" with??? [removed spaces since page is so long] signed, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.172.89 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally there are quite a few plain errors (e.g., "accepts 'her' offer", sentences in wrong order, etc) in this baffling new rewrite. Since this is clearly now a page where one or two contrubutors feel they really "own" the page, I urge you to at least proofread. You'v also completely forgotten to mention the major subplot regarding Yuko (although you appear to be, may I say extremely keen, to mention certain extremely minor details which seem completely pointless in a plot description.)

92.148.172.89 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. No one is trying to own the article in any way. And we need to remove extraneous details per WP:FILMPLOT to make it more concise and remove trivial information. It will also help if you are more civil, as there is no need to be irritated. Also, I think the appropriate title change for the "sequel" would be "spin-off". Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For some time, you and/or Edward simply reverted any edit anyone made. Do you understand that sentence? it is very straightforward. Allow me to repeat: . For some time, you and/or Edward simply reverted any edit anyone made. And you now say "No one is trying to own the article in any way". Are you kidding? Secondly - beyond all belief and totally against every reasonable standard on Wikipedia, you and/or Edward have simply DELETED material on the talk page - such as actual factual source information - and you have done that over and over again. You now say "no need to be irritated". Is this a joke? Once again, allow me to repeat: beyond all belief and totally against every reasonable standard on Wikipedia, you and/or Edward have simply DELETED material on the talk page - such as actual factual source information - and you have done that over and over again. Regarding the trivial issue of "spin-off" it's great that you and/or Edward now wants to change it to "spin-off" - do you work in the industry, TV? I already wrote a long passage in this talk page discussing why "spin-off" is probably not the best choice. Of course, you and/or Edward deleted that. The whole situation is incredible, and very unfortunate. I've never seen anyone so totally keen to maintain control of a fairly unimportant Wiki page, to the point of being wildly, blatantly, openly rude as outlined - point by point - clearly above. Of course - you'll probably now just delete this talk page. Right? No adult has time for silliness like this: I urge you ("and/or Edward" who writes identically, makes the identical mistakes, rewrites things in the identical way) to try to adopt a more relaxed, - indeed polite - community-oriented approach in your Wikipediaing. I urge you to at least correct the huge bloopers in the current version. I assume you don't even speak Japanese, right? A good idea is when you play the DVD or recent BluRay, you can find a set of subtitles which give something of a transliteration of the original Japanese. This might point the way to see what is going on. Good luck. 92.148.172.89 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

incorrect use of "translation"

As already explained - at great length - the lyrics in the film (both the Japanese and ENglish versions of the film), have utterly no connection to a "TRANSLATION". In japanese the girls talk about writing new lyrics; same in the English version. In Japanese the lyrics have utterly no connection to the original John Devnver song, same in the English version. I urge anyone very keen on editing this page to go ahead and correct this very obvious error.

92.148.172.89 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this will be a clear violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Could you explain how this relates to POV ??

Note that:

(1) one can look up the dictionary definition of "translation". The new lyrics she writes, have absolutely no relationship to a "translation"

(2) In the Japanese version, she never, ever refers to her new lyrics as a "translation". She and other characters only refer to them as "new lyrics" "her writing" and so on.

(3) In the English version, she never, ever refers to her new lyrics as a "translation". She and other characters only refer to them as "new lyrics" "her writing" and so on.

I'm really struggling to understand how this could relate to "POV" in any way? Indeed, weirdly referring to them as "translations" (when they are not translations and never referred to that way in the film) seems to be very POV. I appreciate any further explanation of this. 92.148.172.89 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please fix this in the article? (1) it has utterly no connection to a translation, has nothing to do with a translation, and is in no way whatsoever like or even similar to a translation (2) in the actual film it is not referred to in any way whatsoever as a translation, in either the original or English version (3) including in the credits (4) including in other materials, e.g., published books from Ghibli, etc (5) it is only referred to as "poetry" or "new lyrics" which of course it is.

Just for the record for any "anoraks" (like me!) reading, also note that in their own personal version which they are writing for the glee club, they change the song's title from "Country Road" to "Country Roads" with an "s". There is no connection whatsoever - not even the slightest, vaguely, between the original Denver lyrics (which concern the USA state of West Virginia, listening to certain songs on his radio, etc etc) and the various new poetry written by Tsukishima.

Could someone edit the article section to reflect this? It's only a matter of changing four words. I am hesitant to make any major edits as they are always - this has happened on at least 20 occasions - reverted. Cheers 92.148.161.156 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Be bold. Also, please don't worry, there is absolutely no deadline to change this. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point on the no deadline!!! 92.148.53.167 (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not clear

Resolved

 – The paragraph in question has been clarified. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says "....Shizuku looks through the checkout cards in the local library books and discovers that they were checked out by a person named Seiji Amasawa". Is that supposed to mean Shizuki looked through the cards in books she had borrowed from the library, or looked at the cards at every book in the library? Needs calirification. Moriori (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I clarified this in the article. (It's the former.) Mbrubeck (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The current article, is riddled with problems like this. For no understandable reason, the two users who seem to be completely controlling the page (i.e..:reverting every edit, deleting the talk page) completely rewrote the page in the last iteration. This new rewrite is riddled with errors and confusion. Major parts of the story are simply missing, completely pointless detail is included, and there is error after error and poor grammar. You need only revert to the last complete version of the plot description, which was perfectly correct. (It was way too long, but it is impossible to remove the pointless detail from the article, because Edward reverts any edit that removes said pointless detail.) 92.148.172.89 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are a few understandable reasons. One is WP:NPOV. We must maintain a neutral aspect of the article and not add original synthesis or personal opinion on the article. Also, for more information on the proper guidelines with using the talk page, see WP:TPG. Even if we need to add major parts of the story, that can still violate the relevant guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT (it says that the plot summary for feature films such as this one should be 400-700 words). Please show respect for the editors and what they do. No one is ignoring you, these are just relevant guidelines and/or policies that we must follow. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And

Resolved

 – Wording has been clarified. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Her college sibling, Shiho, also lives there". What does that mean? Moriori (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fourteen" ? .. we are never told Shizuku's age

In the film, we never hear what Shizuku's age is.

Someone has written in the article here that she is "fourteen". This would appear to be pure speculation.

Someone should now edit the article and remove the "fourteen".

Sorry if my previous note was unclear.

I would simply edit this, but it is impossible to edit this page as - quite simply and factually - every single edit is reverted by one of the two people keen on editing the page.

Here's a reliable source confirming her age: [1]. The relevant quote is that Shizuku is 14 years old. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[initial shock, edited] Hmm, do we consider that a reliable source by Wikipedia standards?

A fan page?

For the record, I can absolutely assure that in both the Japanese and ENglish script, her age is never stated.

WOuld it be worth rethinking your position on this issue? THank you 92.148.172.89 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not joking with you, I am dead serious. Nausicaa.net is really a reliable source by all means. Please see the relevant information at WP:ANIME/RS#Situational for more detail. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - in this case it is totally wrong. I emailed Marc Hairston at nausicaa,net (i.e., Team Ghiblink) and he replied "You are correct that no where does the film mention that she is 14."

That's pretty straightforward. Also, anyone who has a copy of the DVD can easily see that that is the case.

Mr. Hairston went on to explain that (as you'd expect) the person who wrote the synopsis probably took the information from "some supplementary materials from Japan and those may have specifically said she was 14" - i.e. it's now been completely confirmed as "extra-movie" information. Or what many people would indeed call POV.

This is becoming a somewhat strange page - in that, might I suggest that you and/or Edward would appear to have real resistance to changing even the slightest, smallest, thing on the page?

For instance on this very minor issue, I guess that you know her age is never mentioned in the movie. But you seem to be firm in your resolve to not change anything? (It would be so trivial to change it to "Around fourteen" or "middle school girl" or just delete it.)

For the sake of future editors, and with 100% respect and bonhomie, do you mind if I ask you to state if you agree that her age is never actually mentioned in the movie?

If you nevertheless wish to keep it as "Fourteen", would it be worth (just a suggestion) mentioning in the article that the information is "extra-textual", i.e. does not come from the movie, but from extraneous sources, such as reliable fan sites? Perhaps in a footnote? 90.40.194.13 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"her offer"...

Resolved

 – Typo corrected. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a typo in the last sentence. 92.148.172.89 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"He tells her..."

In the last paragraph. "He tells her he has decided to finish junior high school, then go back to Cremona to study as a luthier."

Note that this is incorrect.

Seiji is accepted by the master in Cremona, and will be going back to Cremona straight away - he will not be attending high school in Japan.

He explains this when they first get on the bicycle, near her apartment building. (Just after she mentions it's like a dream.)

Note that: in the "Disney Dub" a number of things are changed (just as in most Ghibli movies) ... in the English-language version he does indeed say that he will finish high school first (there is also new material in the Disney Dub version about how he is not yet good enough, etc)

Given that it is one of the all-time favourite movies in Japan, the biggest in 1995, it would be really unfortunate for Wikipedia to describe the plot in terms of the US "Disney Dub".

If the page owners truly want to include this, I suggest at least a comment that this is "In the American version"

For the record: note that this section is also in completely the WRONG place in the article.

Also just for the record, the words utter by David in the English version are that he's decided "to finish High School". not "junior" high school.

Also just to be clear, this is way too detailed - it doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.172.89 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing a SHORT plot description....

Here's an example - this is JUST an example - of how one can easily write a SHORT description that is BALANCED.

The current article is very poor because: it contains vast amounts of detail, BUT, it omits large parts of the film. So it is neither one thing or the other.

A plot summary should be that, a description of what happens in the movie. You DO NOT need to describe the movie on a SCENE BY SCENE basis. But note: the problem with the current article is that it DOES attempt to describe the movie on a scene-by-scene basis, but really fails (it completely omits large sections of the movie, but has extreme detail about other irrelevant matters).

"Describing" a movie is completely correct and is not in any way POV. On the other hand, monotonously listing scene-by-scene is horribly POV if indeed it's only describing scenes desired by the writer and leaving out slabs of the movie.

Again, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE here's how you can very briefly and far more effectively describe the plot of W.O.T.H. Let's see:

-- example concise yet complete description of the movie:

[redacted, as I have posted the new version below based on the page editor's suggestions]

-- end

This is concise, balanced, even a little artistic. It has NO POV at all, and simply describes the movie, all of the movie. Nothing is omitted, and nothing is over-detailed. It gets to the essence of the plot, and describes the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.172.89 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While the plot description may be concise, we still need to follow the relevant guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT. As this is a feature film, the guideline recommends that the plot summary for the film should be kept between 400-700 words, so we don't want to prune the plot to below 400 words. We also must avoid peacock wording. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

An excellent point about "Peacock words" - but could you point me to exactly which ones you are referring to in that example text? Thank you. 92.148.172.89 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

One example of peacock terms in this particular example include "surprisingly", and that is considered editorializing. Make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see what you mean but it's quite a stretch. The peacock word idea, POV generally, is about the writer's expressing an opinion about the thing in question. For instance, if one wrote "in a famous scene" or "the beloved studio Ghibli". Here, it's just describing the action of the movie: for instance, Han Solo suddenly appears, a boy is unknown, her Aunty pays a surprise visit, the uncle is wise, the character is a powerful magician, etc. Nevertheless, you're right that it's wise to err on the side of caution when using descriptive words. (The completely extra-textual use of "Fourteen" becomes a bit strange in this light eh!!!!) 90.40.194.13 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And 2

"......that tells a tale of the King of the Dwarves....."Dwarfs? Moriori (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AAMOF, as a result of Tolkien's massive influence on the language of English fantasy writing, "dwarves" has become quite common, sometimes being extended beyond legend and fantasy. And contrary to what I had thought before looking it up this evening, that plural is not JRRT's invention. Here's a quotation from the OED, under "dwarf (n.)":

1818   W. Taylor in Monthly Mag. 46 26   The history of Laurin, king of the dwarves.

Thnidu (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The two substantial problems with the current version.

To be clear, here are the two very substantial problems with the current version.

(1) Quite simply, it only describes about one third or one half of the film.

(2) There is extreme detail about CERTAIN scenes in the movie.

Essentially, the current synopsis is: a detailed description of certain well-known "beloved" scenes in the movie.

This is extremely problematic because obviously:

(a) there are at least four other "famous, beloved" scenes in the film that could also be described in excruciating detail, and

(b) seeing point (1) it means that, very simply, half of the film is simply not described.

The current "new" article features exactly these two problems. The previous "old" article features exactly these two problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.194.13 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the "Plot" section is too detailed

I find that the "Plot" section gives out the whole polt of the movie. However, some people don't like to know what's in the movie until they watch them (I don't mind this). So I think some of the information should be romoved from this section. Do you agree with me?--Jack No1 (talk) 悠悠的唱着最炫民族风，让爱卷走所有的尘埃…… 10:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - obviously, but please keep the section between 400 and 700 words and as editors, we are not expected to censor spoilers. The relevant guidelines can be found at WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

i think this reference can be added

The links i have given were from a site that was one of the very important site related to the topic. In that case it was about studio ghibli. Now the link i have given was from onlineghibli.com which is no less popular than nausicaa.net if not more. And there is no need to promote the site as it is even more popular than the nausicaa.net and it is the first result in the search engine.And i absolutely know about the no-follow system or rule of wikipedia.And that site actually verifies the character list as it actually gives pictures of the artists and it has many other infos like music pieces etc.And this site also has been there for 10 years so it is one of the most important reference site to the topic. The problem is i do not know how to use the reference template[and also do not have access to] that is why i needed to give the external link. We all need to improve wikipedia so review my suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibir2011 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration from the article in Swedish?

Hi! I think maybe this article could be improved. It's not very long, lacks a lot of references and additional info on characters, places, production and themes. Maybe you could find inspiration for expansion of the article at the Swedish article. I happen to be the prime creator of this article, so feel free to ask me about things (here or – preferably – at my discussion page at svwp). Probably some day I could translate parts of it that may be of use to this article, but until then I hope Google Translate can be of some use. In the meantime I'm busy creating and improving a lot of articles related to Studio Ghibli and Madhouse personnel over at svwp. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The SUGGESTED approach

Shizuku is a schoolgirl in the Tokyo suburbs. She reads a lot of books and is keen on writing. One evening, she looks through the checkout cards in her library books. She notices they have all been checked out by the same person - someone named Seiji Amasawa.

Over the next few days, Shizuku encounters a tall boy she does not know: he behaves in an annoying manner, and leaves her in a bad mood each time.

Shizuku finds a cat riding a train: she follows the cat, and discovers an antique shop, run by Mr Nishi. At the shop is a cat statuette, "The Baron." The tall boy is the grandson of Nishi.

Shizuku's friend Yuko is interested in Sugimuro, a sports-playing boy in the same class as the girls.

Sugimuro unknowingly offends Yuko, as he has no idea Yuko likes him.

At a temple, Shizuku argues with Sugimuro. But Sugimuro reveals that it's Shizuku he likes: impossible, as Yuko is Shizuko's best friend. Depressed, she heads to the antique shop.

There she learns the tall boy and Seiji Amasawa are one in the same: Shizuku and Seiji become close.

But Seiji is learning to make violins: he wants to become a master luthier. Days after the two meet, Seiji leaves for Cremona, Italy, for a two month trial with a master violin-maker.

Shizuku is depressed but resolute: she wants to test her talents, too. Talking with Yuko, she decides to pursue her writing seriously during the two months.

She asks Nishi if she can write about The Baron, which once had a female companion statuette, Louise.

Walking home, Shizuku begins to narrate her story, and we cut to the first of three surrealist fantasy sequences featuring The Baron, which tell the story she is writing.

Shizuku works hard on her writing: she eats snack food, she stays up "until four AM," and her school grades slip. In the second fantasy sequence, we learn about Louise, and the fairytale's villain arrives.

Shizuku, her older sister Shiho, and her parents quarrel about Shizuku's grades: Shizuku goes to sleep, and dreams the final part of her story, which ends with her screaming as it becomes a nightmare.

We move from Shizuku's nightmare to a dream sequence of Mr Niishi: the lost love of his youth arrives at his door. The dream finishes, and the real Shizuku arrives at his door: her story is complete and she is delivering the manuscript to Nishi.

Shizuku waits tensely for hours while Nishi reads. When he finally appears, she breaks down in tears. He consoles her with noodles, explaining that Seiji needed considerably more noodles after Seiji made his first violin.

In the final flashback scene, Nishi reveals the full story of his first love, Louise, which he has never told to anyone before. They were students in Germany; they discovered the cat statuettes in a cafe. The two young people (and the two cat statuettes) were separated forever by World War II.

Shizuku decides she does indeed want to attend high school, to learn more about writing. Nishi drives her home and she tells her mother her trials are over "for now." Shizuku goes to bed at peace and exhausted.

But she wakes early. She looks out the window, and discovers Seiji below on his bike. He's returned a day early, and indeed, he is going to go to Cremona to become a luthier.

They ride his bike to a lookout and watch the sun rise over Tokyo, where Seiji proposes future marriage to Shizuku. The film ends with "Shizuku, I love you!" as they hug.

(607 words)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.194.13 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)