# Talk:Howl's Moving Castle (film)

Is Online Ghibli a reliable source? It advertises itself as a fan site, but I'm not sure if it comes under the effect of WP:SELFPUB as its "About Us" page indicates that it has an editorial team. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the recent "of the same name" additions by Ded Meem (talk · contribs) (this also is the case with Kiki's Delivery Service and other Ghibli films), given some ongoing discussions regarding that terminology (and the WP:OFTHESAMENAME essay) at WT:FILM and at WT:MOSFILM.
That said, how should we handle this particular article's lead section? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer to keep the wording in, because it informs the reader of the name of the book, which your text does not do. There may be valid reasons to not use that construction in some circumstances, but I don't see how they apply here. With book adaptations in particular, names frequently differ. I also would like to keep "loosely based", as the differences between book and film are marked, arguably more so than better known YA/fantasy adaptations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Of course, the "of the same name" wording has been swung back and forth over the years according to the histories at WT:FILM and other FA/GA articles on films based on the relevant source material (books, novels, manga, remakes of older films, etc.) I could find. In this case, Ded Meem boldly added it in, then I partially reverted said addition. So, per WP:BRD, we should have started the discussion in the first place.
As part of the revert I did, I also thought "loosely" was considered a potential editorializing issue. I could be wrong. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
The version I took to GA some time ago [1] had that wording, and so I was under the impression I was restoring the status quo. I'm not sure when it was taken out, and it's not really important. Do you have strong feelings about it? I'm not wedded to the phrase, my strong opinion here is only that we should include the title of the book. And I see "loosely" as well-within our editorial discretion, given the material we have about thematic differences between book and movie. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)