# Talk:Castle in the Sky

The following has been moved here from previously separate sections to keep the discussion about the title of both the film and this article in one place. Tk420 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


### Name
I believe that the name of this article should be Laputa: Castle in the Sky. The capitalization of the first word is a style choice--like the capitalization of TIME magazine--and WP's style is to capitalize the first letter of the main words in titles, which why the magazine is found at Time (magazine) and not TIME (magazine) on WP.  Nareek 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the parenthesised note after the title, "in English, literally translated as The Sky's Castle: Laputa", should be deleted. This is basically nonsense - it would be a mistranslation, by someone with a weak command of English. The particle no joining the parts of the Japanese title has a wide range of meanings: if you wanted to be stiffly literal it would be the castle pertaining to the sky. But "Castle in the sky" is a perfect translation, as literal as should ever be necessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


### Name (again)
I feel this article should be titled "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" to reflect the film's international title, not just the North American release. Phonemonkey 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Finite 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Castle in the Sky" gets more than four times as many hits as "Laputa: Castle in the Sky". If you add "Miyazaki" you still get about a 3:5 ratio of Laputa to Laputa-free. I'm inclined to keep the article title as is. Nareek 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, its just that some people know the film simply as "Laputa" [1], [2] and I think at least the full title has both terms in it. Phonemonkey 09:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current (Castle in the Sky) name should be used in concordance with the renaming of the title by Disney as a result of 'Laputa' being an hispanic obscenity. If it were to be renamed, then it should be changed to the original Japanese, Tenkuu no Shiro Rapyuta. There was no official distribution of an english version 'Laputa' by Studio Ghibli until the license was bought by Disney - so the name should be kept the same as the official english release.
Seems like the only place it was released as "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" is Australia.

And the UK. In fact the UK DVD has a massive "LAPUTA" and a very small "castle in the sky". --h2g2bob (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Nausicaa.net lists them and says the UK has both titles. I'd support "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" (after all, nausicaa.net calls it that :-) --h2g2bob (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There was a release under Castle in the sky in the UK however it has long been deleted.  The main DVD version in the UK is certainly Laputa.  To be frank as a Brit I see this naming as yet another example of the US-centricness of some articles on Wikipedia (which has, included before now people using the term "theater" on UK based articles about cinemas...) and would thoroughly support renaming this to a less US-centric and therefore more global name.  Bods (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. I live in Canada, and my DVD is called Laputa: Castle in the Sky. Calling it just Castle in the Sky is an example of the rampant US-centrism on Wikipedia. 139.142.219.253 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think renaming it would be fine, though I think the whining about "rampant" US-centrism needs to stop. Part of the reason for this perceived bias is because there are so many more US-based editors (given that Wikipedia was started in the US, this really shouldn't be surprising). On top of that, I'm pretty sure the US is the most populous of the English-speaking countries out there (close to 400 million people now), so products released in the US will tend to fit into the "most commonly used title" part of the naming guidelines more than releases in other English-speaking countries. It's certainly annoying sometimes, but it's a fact. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
it should include "laputa" as that is the PROPER name of the movie, not the americanized removal  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 
"Japanese: 天空の城ラピュタ Hepburn: Tenkū no Shiro Rapyuta, re-titled Laputa: Castle in the Sky for re-release in the United Kingdom and Australia" ... If the romaji is "Tenkū no Shiro Rapyuta" then it hasn't been renamed for the UK and Aus; that's what the original name means.
Further, the article says the title was only shortened in 2003, in 3 countries. Any mention of different titles should be in the "Title" section, not the name and lead. Harshmustard (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Internationally (UK, Canada and Australia) it is known as Laputa, or Laputa: castle in the Sky. Only in the states, was Laputa removed. The name should be changed to include Laputa in the article title, to reflect what it is commonly called in most countries. That's certainly what I've always known it as. I'm concerned that the US nomenclature here is overiding the naming convention in a number of other countries.  Also, Laputa is the common name according to WP:COMMONNAME as it gets more ghits. *Laputa and Ghibli* gets 1.6 million *"castle in the sky" and ghibli* only gets 1.4 million. Following wikipedia common name policy, the page title should be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


### Use of special character in english translation of name?
I note that in the wikipedia article, the characer "ū" is used, the u with a line over top. The corresponding IMDB article uses "û", a u with a carat on top. Which one is correct, or are they the same? Kareeser|Talk! 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The first is correct orthography for Japanese. The second, the carat, is for typefaces/fonts that do not have the ū. 220.52.16.5 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


### The Title
I don't understand why the title of the page is "Castle in the Sky". "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" is Studio Ghibli's official English title for the movie and it's been released under that title in multiple English speaking countries. Why is it that the US title is the only one that matters? If you search on Google for "'laputa: castle in the sky' ghibli" you get only 42,600 results and when you search for "'castle in the sky' ghibli" you get 66,000 results, but searching for "laputa ghibli" gets you 1,280,000 results. It's obvious that most people just refer to the movie as "Laputa".Linkdude20002001 (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


### Move discussion
In earlier sections on this talk page there has been disagreement over what the name of the article should be. As the re-naming of the article is likely to be controversial I have decided to start an official move discussion. At present the name of the article is Castle in the Sky but the film is referred to as Laputa: Castle in the Sky throughout. Tk420 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


### Requested move 8 October 2016
### Name of Article
Laputa's original name in Japan, and the official Studio Ghibli name is Laputa:Castle in the Sky. This is what its known as in the UK, NZ Australia and Canada(?) as well. Disney (when they distributed it under licence) removed Laputa from the title in the US - the title of the article should reflect the common name globally, not just the Disneyified American title. Wikipedia does have a bit of a problem sometimes with being US centric... I think this is probably a good example. I've always known it simply as "Laputa" or "Laputa, castle in the sky" Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in Talk:Castle in the Sky#Requested move 8 October 2016 in which it was decided not to move the article as there appears to be consensus that just "Castle in the Sky" is the most common name in English sources. I would also like to remind users that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the "official" name for the topic in the article's title and it prefers the most common title as determined in a majority of reliable English language resources (please see WP:COMMONNAME). As the topic of this article does not have any strong national ties to any English-speaking countries, the most common title for the film is inevitably the American one given the United States is the country with the largest population of English speakers with the rest of the English-Speaking World coming nowhere near. Tk420 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)-edited
Based on the copious discussion above, I decided to change all of the article's references to the film to simply "Laputa", barring direct quotes and discussion about the title itself. Where necessary, such as in the intro and in infoboxes, I have used the long form of "Laputa: Castle in the Sky". However, since the consensus seems to be not in favor of moving the page back to "Laputa: Castle in the Sky", I have left it at simply "Castle in the Sky".—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The rationale for using the cover art is based on an interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. Consensus for this can be seen  here and  here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Image removed as it fails WP:NFCI#1. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was probably taken unattributed from this page on nausicaa.net. The list should also probably be a table. Citations are nonexistent, as well as the years the awards were given. I've added a template message for now, but it'll need some work before it's up to standard. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A couple months later, I've reworked this section and got sources for everything. I tried to find individual online sources wherever possible, but most of them had to be verified by the Cavallaro book. The problem is the book also doesn't provide dates and also looks like it was copied from nausicaa.net. I don't have reason to believe either source is unreliable in this case; I'm just uneasy because I couldn't even find records that some of these awards even existed in the first place. Whether the information was lost in the ether over the years or whether someone really did make it up, though, isn't for me to say. I'm going to call it good enough. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know what channel the movie aired on when it was broadcast on "Japanese television" on August 2, 2013? I can't find that information in any sources. —theMainLogan (t•c) 04:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheMainLogan: I've read a good number of news pieces on this event, and I don't recall that any of them mentioned it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of making a full switch to {{sfn}} citations for this article, as the {{rp}} superscripts are starting to interfere with legibility in a few sections. Speak now or forever hold your peace! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lysenko97: I've reverted your edits where you linked the voice actors in the cast list. I also came across the claim that the voice actors for the 1988 dub were credited under pseudonyms while researching for this article. However, I never found a reliable source that supported that, though it has been parroted in a couple different places on the Internet. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bluerules: Thanks for your contributions to this article, but I've reverted your recent edits as there are a couple of issues with them. All of the information in the opening paragraph is in line with MOS:FILMLEAD, which recommends that the (voice) actors starring in the film be mentioned, as well as a short summary of the plot. You removed the parts which you said were "giving away the ending" (diff), but content like this should not be removed simply because it spoils the film — see WP:SPOILER. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69:
1. I think it's acceptable having the Japanese cast in the lead, but in keeping with how the infobox focuses on the original release (e.g. only the Japanese cast goes into the starring parameter), the English cast is typically excluded. I also find it questionable how the Disney English dub cast is included in the lead, but the original English dub cast is not. Furthermore, mentioning the Disney English dub in the third sentence confuses the chronology - we're jumping from 1986 to 2003 without context behind the Disney English dub. So again, I support the Japanese cast being in the opening paragraph, but do not believe the Disney English cast belongs there. If the Disney English cast had to be included in the lead, I think they are better suited to the third paragraph, which discusses the production of the English dubs (e.g. "another dub was produced by Disney in 1998, released internationally by Buena Vista in 2003 and starring Anna Paquin, James Van Der Beek, Cloris Leachman, and Mark Hamill).
2. I am familiar with Wikipedia's spoiler policy, but there are places for spoilers and the lead is not one of them. MOS:FILMLEAD recommends a summary of the premise, not the plot: "In terms of plot, the general premise should be briefly summarized". Giving away the entire story of the film is not a brief summary of the premise; that is a plot summary (which we have another section for). I also take issue with saying Sheeta and Pazu are "chased by Muska" with no context of who Muska is. It is more concise to instead say Sheeta and Pazu are being chased by two factions - the military and the pirates.
Hope that explains my edits better. I also hope we can find citations for the cast of the original 1988 English dub - there is a video interview of Barbara Goodson confirming she voiced Pazu, but I haven't found evidence for the rest (I recognize their voices, but I know that doesn't cut it). Bluerules (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Your argument for why the English cast is included in the lead but not the infobox makes sense; I'll go ahead and remove just those voice actors, but I just want to note that your original edit removed all of the voice actors for both language versions. As for whether we should be mentioning the later events of the plot, there seems to be a disagreement between different sections of the MOS here. FILMLEAD does indeed recommend just a general premise, but doesn't explicitly advise against any further details; MOS:AM § Lead is a bit vaguer,  saying the lead should "stand on its own as a short article" and describe both "[the work's] premise and plot". Also, note that the spoiler guideline does mention that spoilers can exist in any part of the article — even the lead — if they serve an encyclopedic purpose. I would argue that they do, as Laputa's technology is highly relevant to the discussion of the themes and style of the film. As for providing more context on who Muska is, we could mirror the phrase "orphans Sheeta and Pazu" and introduce him as "government agent Muska" or something. It feels super weird to exclude his character from the lead entirely, as he is the main antagonist. As for tracking down the cast list for the 1988 dub, see § About the reverts above; you would not believe the amount of searching I did to try and track down a reliable source for the cast while I was working this article up to GA. (Good find for that the Goodson interview, by the way.) There are a few different databases on the Internet that have cast lists, but I contacted a couple of them and was unable to reliably verify where they had gotten the information. My local library had access to some archives where I found information about the dubs that Streamline did for Ghibli, but nothing about this film since that dub wasn't done by them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I initially removed the Japanese cast from the lead, but after further consideration, I support their inclusion. I'm glad we came to an agreement on this.
As for the story in the opening paragraph, the encyclopedic purpose is why the location matters. The lead is a summary introduction to the article's subject and the encyclopedic purpose of introducing the subject to the reader is accomplished without giving away the entire story. Laputa's technology can be included in the lead without revealing the ending. IMO, the premise should say Pazu and Sheeta are searching for Laputa on first reference and then note they are being pursued, as their pursuit of Laputa is what moves the story forward (e.g. "The film follows orphans Sheeta and Pazu as they search for Laputa, a mythical castle flying in the sky, while being pursued by the military and a group of pirates."). The premise can then transition into mentioning Laputa's technology.
Mentioning Muska is a government agent helps alleviate the context issue, but I'm not certain if any characters other than Sheeta and Pazu should be mentioned in the lead. Muska, although the main antagonist, is still a side character, and the film is about Sheeta and Pazu, not him or the pirates.
The cast of the original English dub is something I may look into more - I'll definitely add any references like the Barbara Goodson interview if I find them. Thank you for your work on this article. Bluerules (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems I was mistaken about the relevance of end-of-plot material in the lead. I went through the archives of WT:SPOILER, which reveals a general consensus against it unless there's some kind of exceptional situation. That, and the fact that almost none of the leads in Category:FA-Class film articles have "spoiler"-y content, is enough to convince me that my version of the lead was probably against established consensus. It seem JakimD has changed it back to the truncated version; that seems fine to me, so let's stick with it. As for mentioning Muska in the lead, I would disagree on the points that Muska is a side character, or that he does not majorly influence the plot. Most of the film is indeed focused on the quest for Laputa, of course, but once the characters arrive there their primary motivation quickly focuses on thwarting Muska's megalomanical plans. The characters would have no motive in the third act if not for Muska's actions, which makes him much more relevant to the plot than, say, Dola or the General. I think the best thing that would address your concerns would be to add in "government agent" as I suggested earlier. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the new version is a significant improvement over the previous one.
I've noticed film articles will sometimes mention the lead characters by name in the opening paragraph, but not the supporting characters. For example, the Deadpool article reads "Wade Wilson hunts the man who gave him mutant abilities and a scarred physical appearance" and the Deadpool 2 article reads "Deadpool forms the X-Force to protect a young mutant from the time-traveling soldier Cable". Both of these mention a prominent supporting character, but don't mention him by name (Ajax in the former, Firefist in the latter).
In that respect, maybe it would be better to say Sheeta and Pazu are being pursued by a government agent without specifically mentioning the character by name. Muska definitely influences the story, but he is still a supporting character in a story centered on Sheeta and Pazu. (On a side note, this makes me wonder why Muska's VAs are billed below Dola's VAs in the Japanese and both English versions, but that's a different discussion.)
Anyways, regardless of if Muska is mentioned by name in the lead, I'm satisfied with how it currently reads. I'll be back if I'm able to find more references for the original English dub cast. Bluerules (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect to the editors working on the Deadpool articles, I'd rather not use other articles as models for style unless they've been through a successful FAC (and maybe not even then). Do you know of any previous discussions or consensus reached on how to mention main characters in the lead? If not, this might be a good enough question to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction to possibly amend the guideline to be more specific on this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe articles for superhero films typically use the official synopsis for reference. If my memory is correct, the synopsis for Deadpool 2 directly referenced the title character and Cable, but didn't identify the mutant being hunted by Cable (Firefist), hence why the lead for that article doesn't reference Firefist by name. Bluerules (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, as for why the order of the voice cast is the way it is, I don't think there is a reason. That's just how it was before I started work on the article, and I never really gave it any thought. I think whoever originally made the list just followed the order given at Nausicaa.net, but note that the order is different for the English versions as well. I don't have any strong feelings about it either way, so feel free to change it up if you think it might be more suitable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what the original reference for the cast order is either, but I do know the Japanese version and both English dubs bill Dola's VA (Kotoe Hatsui, Rachel Vanowen, and Cloris Leachman) third and Muska's VA (Minori Terada, Jeff Winkless, and Mark Hamill) fourth in their respective ending credits. There are differences in the credits - Pazu's VA has top billing in the Japanese and original English dub credits, while Sheeta's VA has top billing in the Disney English dub credits - but the billing for Dola and Muska's VAs is consistent in all three. Although I personally disagree with Dola being above Muska, I think the cast order here is correct because it follows the Japanese credits. Bluerules (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Mumbai0618, thanks for your contributions to this article. I reverted your latest edit, firstly, because it took § Plot summary over the 700-word limit required of plot summaries. A couple of your additions also seemed a bit too much like editorializing, which I didn't feel added any encyclopedic content. Also, you introduced a couple of inaccurate statements, such as "fatally ditching them into the sea" and "they kiss and recite the spell". Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TechnoSquirrel69, the credits for the original English dub's cast are incorrectly presented on Nausicaa.net. I viewed the credits for this dub several years ago and this was the cast order as I documented it:

Bertha Greene (Barbara Goodson)
Louise Campbell
Rachel Vanowen
Jack Witte
Charles Wilson
Mark Richards
Ernest Fessler
Daniel Foster
Bob Stuart
I don't fully recall seeing the character names, in part because the video was low quality, but I'm pretty certain the credits had "Ernest Fessler" as Henri and "Daniel Foster" as Lui. Fujio Tokita was not in the credits and I don't believe Uncle Pom's voice actor was listed; it appears Nausicca.net made a mistake by placing Uncle Pom's Japanese actor in the credits for the first English dub.
Have you been able to view the credits of the original English dub? The video I saw appears to have been taken down; I'll let you know if I can find another. Bluerules (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Bluerules! I have not ever watched the 1988 dub and don't really know where you can find it at this point. I do remember digging through some ancient forums a while ago, whose users claimed to have copies and/or online access to it, but I never came across anything solid. I'll take another look since you bring it up. For the time being, let's keep the information provided by Nausicaa.net as, by your own admission, your list is not quite complete. Keep me updated if you find anything! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. As noted in the article, the original English dub was included on a 1996 LaserDisc and a 2002 DVD. However, as these were both Japanese releases, I doubt they have English credits, let alone credits for the English dub. The version of the original English dub that I watched only had Japanese credits for the Japanese cast.
Like I mentioned, I know there are English credits for the original English dub because I saw them (and Nausicaa.net wouldn't be able to list a cast without credits). I assume these credits were shown in Streamline's North American release and the TV broadcast in the UK; I believe the credits I viewed were from a recording of the latter. It'll definitely be a difficult task to find the original English dub's credits again because they don't appear to be on any home media releases, but I'll see what I can do.
I don't mind keeping "Ernest Fessler" and "Daniel Foster" off the article for now, although Fujio Tokita was definitely not in the credits of the original English dub and it is improbable he would have reprised his role for an English version. The references we have state the original English dub was produced in LA and therefore would have used LA-based actors. I'm confident Tokita's listing in the credits of the original English dub is a mistake on Nausicaa.net's part. Bluerules (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm neutral on removing Tokita's name from the 1988 dub column, but if you decide to do so, please use the {{Unknown}} template and preferably link to this section of the talk page in your edit summary. I'm not sure what you mean when you say he "was definitely not in the credits of the original" though, because he absolutely is. He's listed fifth, and I've verified this image with the credits from the original. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
When I said "the credits of the original", I was referring to the credits of the original English dub, not the Japanese original. The credits of the original English dub do not list Tokita; those credits list the nine names mentioned above. Sorry for the confusion; I corrected my message to make that clear. Bluerules (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bluerules: I have an update on my investigation. Against all odds, I managed to find an owner of the 2002 region 2 DVD, which has the 1988 English dub on it. Unfortunately, I was only able to confirm our suspicions; the DVD's case and notes have no information about the English dub, only the original Japanese. The credits in the actual video are still in Japanese when switched over to the English track. This path being a dead end, that leaves only the longest of long shots: that someone still has a VHS recording of the English dub aired on iTV on New Year's Eve in 1988, and that the broadcasters decided to roll the credits for the English dub after the broadcast in place of the original. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, I appreciate the research. Like I mentioned, I'm pretty certain the video I viewed with the original English dub credits was from the TV broadcast in the UK (which would explain the low quality of the upload). I know the credits exist, having seen them firsthand, but the tricky part is obviously finding them. I think the only other way of viewing the original English dub's credits would be if Discotek Media obtained the rights for the film from GKIDS; Discotek usually includes all available English versions on its releases and I believe those releases also include credits for those various English versions. But I doubt that's happening, so I'm focusing on looking through video footage to see if I can find the original English dub's credits again. Bluerules (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


### 2025 conversation
All the information I put down about the voice actors in the 1987 dub produced at Point.360 (then known as Magnum), seems to not have any source, although it's everywhere on the internet links and wikis, etc. BTVA appears to have gotten the information from an outside source, without any further context. --TheMaxM1 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Added subsection header. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@TheMaxM1: I'm afraid that's exactly the problem. From what I've seen on this topic in the past, several websites seem to be parroting this information from each other without actually checking it against any primary source, leaving no way to know whether the credits are indeed correct. The same applies to the Behind the Voice Actors page, which is why those credits are not marked with a green checkmark. Regardless, Wikipedia needs verifiability, not truth, and statements cannot stand in articles without a citation. Stop edit-warring your changes back in when they're challanged and resolve the issue in this discussion before editing the article further. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I know I'd hate to use "Trust me, bro" for an argument, but other wikis like Dubbing wiki and Ghibli Wiki have displayed this stuff without any objection from higher-ups. If one hears the voice clips from the original dubs, I'm sure that the names will match up. --TheMaxM1 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thanks again for your review at the FAC! I'm taking a break from working on this article to focus on other things, so it'll be a little while until I get around to addressing your comments. However, before both of our memories fade too much, I wanted to ask a few follow-up questions.

To what extent would you question the reliability of Cavallaro's writing? Her earlier work has been criticized quite harshly, but I haven't come across similar complaints for the books being cited in the article. Her publisher McFarland & Company seems reputable and specializes in similar kinds of books. She's also been cited by some of her contemporaries like Denison and Napier, both animation experts who seem respected in their field.
I am by no means familiar with Cavallaro's work. I just happened to notice that there is a fair amount of criticism of it in the Dani Cavallaro article. For WP:Featured article status, the standard for sources is not just being reliable but also of high quality per WP:FACR 1c. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
When you refer to a systemic bias towards the English-language dub, would you be expecting further discussion of the original Japanese version or dubs made in other languages?
Less of the English-language ones, mainly. The Japanese version is the primary one and should receive the main focus. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
You take issue with the weight of the statements being made about the film's place in the body of steampunk works, and I agree with you to a certain extent. ("keystone work" is a bit too far, in retrospect...) I'm unable to settle on a good phrasing as there's a dissonance between the sources: the steampunk scholars you mentioned seem not to consider the film very significant — if we're going to interpret their collective silence as a standpoint on the matter — while the animation scholars Greenberg and Reinders think it is.
I might just stick to saying that it is analysed as a steampunk work by certain scholars and summarizing what they say about it with attribution as appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
What additional material would you expect the article needs in order to feel less superficial? This one may be my ego talking a little, but I'm hoping by your answer I can learn more about what I need to work on to pull my writing up to a higher level of quality.
Difficult to say. The main thing that gives articles like this depth is sourced analysis from experts in the relevant fields, so it depends on what they say. One thing that did struck me as somewhat odd however is that the "Development" section is, to my eye, surprisingly brief—there is usually a fair amount more to say about that stuff. Anyway, the analysis that scholars provide often revolves around themes, how certain artistic choices reflect various trends and viewpoints and what can be gleaned from those choices, the work's (known or suspected) inspirations and impact on later works, and so on. While they are by no means of WP:Featured article quality, two articles I've written—A Honeymoon in Space and A Plunge into Space—might be helpful in illustrating what I mean. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Bottom text. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate your responses, I think I have a better idea of the issues you're seeing now and how to address them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@CriticalBread14 and Sjones23: Let's discuss the issue here rather than approaching edit-warring and conversing through summaries. I used the spelling "Laputan" when I wrote this section as it was the spelling I had seen used by multiple reliable sources that covered the subject, including Lioi 2010, Cavallaro 2006, and Cavallaro 2015. CriticalBread, I assume that when you mention "the actual film", you're referring to the 2003 English dub? It's worth noting that all of the sources I mentioned were published after its release, so it's reasonable to assume they made that editorial decision with the knowledge of the dub, and that the Disney team may have done it differently. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I was referring to the 2003 dub. I wonder if the sources you mention prefer "Laputan" because that may be how it appears in Gulliver's Travels, from which Laputa gets its name? I'm not really familiar with the work or the demonyms used in it, but I wonder why they might have changed it in the dub. Might be a question for a linguist. CriticalBread14 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed an interesting detail; my best guess is that Disney followed the pattern of demonym construction from certain names (Canadian from Canada, for example) or just the general tendency for countries' names to end in -ia in English. I'm not familiar enough with Gulliver's Travels to know whether the spelling is derived from it. In any case, however, I think we should defer to the spelling used by the sources, which is the most straightforward way to resolve these kinds of disputes. I looked through all of the major sources I currently have access to, and was only able to find Laputan in cases where the demonym was used — in addition to the ones above, I also found it in Reinders 2016. With that in mind, I will be reverting to the previous spelling. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:43, 30 May 2024 (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) 19:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)