Talk:Ugetsu

message: The name of the manor in the film isn't Wakasa Manor; that's the noblewoman's personal name. I can't recall the name of the manor itself just now, but I'll try to remember to check it tomorrow. In the meantime, if I forget, someone else may know what to correct it to. 24.145.132.195 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Manor 

message: This edit contains a false reference to "May Tossier". I cannot locate such a person. The other contents of the edit may also be a clever hoax. Can anyone check this against the Wakeman/McDonald books? Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This .edu site seems to back up most of what's in that edit. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh thanks, May Tossier was meant to be Max Tessier. I will check the rest of that later. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible hoax edit 

message: Until yesterday, this film was classified as being more important to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese than the book on which it is based, which is absolutely ridiculous. I tried to change the importance to "Mid" since it seemed reasonable to me that neither should be "High" or "Top", but the book should be at least as high as, if not higher than, the film. I was reverted almost immediately, and no explanation was offered why this film should be more important than its source material. In order to resolve the relative discrepancy between book and film in the least confrontational way possible, I changed the status of the book. Now, however, both the film and the book are too high, as demonstrated by the book outranking similarly well-known works of Edo period prose and drama such as Nansō Satomi Hakkenden, Chūshingura and The Love Suicides at Sonezaki (all Mid) and matching Oku no Hosomichi, which is by far the best-known work of Edo literature, period.
I can understand that this film is considered an important work of world cinema outside Japan, but WikiProject Japan's importance scale is for the articles' relative importance when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese. Almost no one in Japan (other than film buffs and people over 80) has even heard of this film, where the book's name is known to everyone who graduated high school. This film is already considered "Core" on WikiProject Film, so why does it need an inexplicably high ranking on WikiProject Japan as well?
elvenscout742 (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this "High importance" to WikiProject Japan? 

message: I inserted an analysis of the word Ugetsu: from the kango roots u 'rain' and getsu 'moon' (inferred from the kanji shown).  This was reverted as "rather misplaced".  Does that mean it shouldn't be in the article at all, or only that a paragraph about the writing is not the right place for it?  I think there ought to be some explicit statement of how Ugetsu monogatari corresponds to Tales of Moonlight and Rain. —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While the information you provided is accurate, it is not really relevant to this article, because the sentence in question discusses the English title, which is a simple abbreviation, the link between etymology of the word "ugetsu" → title of the book → Japanese title of the film → English title of the film is pretty tenuous. We could use your help over at Tales of Moonlight and Rain, though. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word ugetsu is the English title of the film; what link could be more direct? —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your edit. Sorry to revert. There are a number of reasons. First the edit was misplaced, in the midst of a section about the production of a film. Second, adding parenthetical comments mid-sentence is not very good writing style. Third, according to WWWJDIC "ugetsu" means "雨月 【うげつ】 (n) (1) (arch) being unable to see the (harvest) moon because of rain; (2) (See 皐月・1) fifth lunar month". I don't know which or either meaning applies here, but you had no reference and your edit didn't seem to add very much information about the actual meaning of the word. If you can find a reference for what the name means in this context, that would be great, since I don't know either. But I would suggest rather including the meaning in Tales of Moonlight and Rain before adding it here. Thanks for your concern, and edit, and thank you for commenting here. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I basically agree with JS's above comment on this. The etymology belongs to a sub-section of the article on the book, unless a specific reference for the English title of this film can be found that states that the localizers who invented the English name Ugetsu (or Tales of Ugetsu??) intended a particular meaning. Ugetsu in this context probably means "rain and the moon", and I have said as much on Talk:Tales of Moonlight and Rain#etymology, but it really doesn't belong here. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology 

message: How does one commercial Blu-ray release make the title "official" for two whole countries?  I take back what I said about Elven moving the article out of boredom- he has demonstrated he's quite hellbent on tearing this movie down. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this either, the film could be released under any number of different names, for whatever reason. The name of a DVD release or video doesn't matter enough to be that prominent in the article. Also I think the film is out of copyright. I'm not sure about that though. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please note that the same user is doing the same kind of thing at Sansho the Bailiff. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice you moaning about this here and posted my reasoning below. Both films have been officially licensed for distribution by two separate companies (the BFI and Eureka) and have been released multiple times in three different formats, always under the same title. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official" British title 

message: I have been reverted several times by two different users on this. I now need to provide my justification here for what should have been an uncontroversial edit.
The film is officially licensed for distribution in the UK and Ireland by Eureka. They released the film on DVD under the title Ugetsu Monogatari and then later re-released it on Blu-Ray under the same title. In this, they are following the usage of the BFI, the previous distributor of the film on VHS
The film does not appear to have been referred to as Ugetsu (without the second word) in official British or Irish sources since at least 1998. PLEASE do not remove this again: Ugetsu is the American title; Ugetsu Monogatari is the British title.
elvenscout742 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't removed from the article, it was put under "release/home media". JoshuSasori (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that this is the official (and implicitly best-known) title in the UK and Ireland was removed, and the wording implied that the film was not known by this title before 2008, but it was available on VHS (from a different company) under the same title in 1998. Prominent variant titles belong in the intro for clarification purposes. As an Irishman I was not familiar with the American title of this Japanese film until I read it on Wikipedia. The Avengers (2012 film) gives the UK title in the opening sentence, even though that film is American and is known throughout the world by its American title; this is a Japanese film that is known as Ugetsu in America, but as Ugetsu Monogatari in its country of origin and in several English-speaking countries. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: It only relates to the RM in so far as the current title of the article is not the title by which the film is known either officially or casually in the UK and Ireland. When have I ever said that the official title of the film in UK and Ireland supported the title being changed to Ugetsu (film)?? If I had my way, this article would be titled according to the way I first learned about the film, and not in this silly "abbreviate the Japanese title" that seems to be quite common in North America. (Admittedly, the latter film is known as Kuroneko in UK as well, that is why I have not mentioned any variant title on that article.) However, I understand that my way is unreasonable given that this film is known in some English-speaking countries as Ugetsu and the article has always had this title as a result. This is why my above RM relates exclusively to this film being disambiguated from the far more famous book of the same name, and does not attempt to move the article to its Japanese/British/Irish title. Your attempt, despite this, to read bad faith into my edits to the article has been noted. Why is it a peacock word to mention that the film's official release title in several English-speaking countries is the same as the Japanese one? Surely by calling the article by its "official" American title you are doing the same thing? elvenscout742 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, it might be pointed out that the Eureka page provides yet another literal/accurate translation of the Japanese title (as a gloss for the meaning of the title, not saying "this applies only to the film and not to the book", or acting as an "official UK title"): Tales of the Rain and the Moon. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Official implies it's official, as if decreed by law or something. I've left the British "alternate title" in the intro but changed the wording. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't actually want to say "official" originally, I wanted to say "is sold as", but this seemed inappropriate. Additionally, the UK title is every bit as official as the American title, since the American title also was not thought up by the film-makers, but rather by an independent distributor. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Elvenscout742 has already vandalized this page to make a point, by moving the page then changing the redirect to Tales of Moonlight and Rain without making the slightest effort to relink any of the then-mislinked pages. This addition of the UK title, his reverting of consensus, and endless nitpicking argumentativeness on the talk pages, is yet more of the same outrageous behaviour that he has exhibited elsewhere. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this: - Elven, boy, am I getting tired of you.  But actually, if you're making a claim in an article, the burden is on you to provide the source.  I'm not going to revert again, but I'll ask someone else to, and ask that we can build a consensus on this. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I didn't think you would resort to name-calling this fast. Anyway, there is no need for me to cite three or more sources, or to build consensus. You are working against a clear Wikipedia guideline here, as outlined below. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What name calling?  Anyway, your quote below doesn't really help you. It says the title under which it is released is "normally" the most commonly recognized, but not always.  You have a source saying the movie's been released under a title in Britain, but not that that's the best-known title; it is pretty reasonable that the wording be altered to reflect this.  I can see why you have "no need" for consensus, though. So far consensus has not been your friend. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I too do not understand what "name-calling" refers to. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my screen was dusty and I didn't notice the comma in your comment, so I read it as " Elven boy, am I getting tired of you". I have sources that say the film has been released three separate times under the title Ugetsu Monogatari, and I have not seen any evidence that the film has ever been released under any other title in the UK in the last 50 years. It is obviously the most widely-known title, since it is the only title under which the film is commercially available. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the most common title, and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterward.
elvenscout742 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official UK title 

message: In accordance with a recommendation that was made in the peer review, I have added some more information to the article. This edit may be fairly poor prose, as I was translating/summarizing Sato's words, and he writes in these long, rambling Japanese sentences. This edit, on the other, may not belong, as it clutters up the section on "Accolades". It's a nice bit of trivia, but I wasn't sure how to blend it properly with the article. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sato material 

message: Can someone tell us which of the nine tales in the original book this story is taken from? Some of the tales have a synopsis and some just a title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugetsu_Monogatari
Grandma Roses (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See production section: "Mizoguchi based his film on two stories from the book, "The House in the Thicket" (Asaji ga Yado) and "The Lust of the White Serpent" (Jasei no In)." Ribbet32 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which tale? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ugetsu. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en/article/62136.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160613044825/http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html to http://www.filmsite.org/villvoice.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ugetsu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ugetsu. 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/20120222024831/http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/sight/1962.html to http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/sight/1962.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This doesn't sit well with me: it's essentially just advertising for the two current licensed distributors in the major Anglophone regions, and includes no information on home media release either (a) in Japan or (b) before 2005, which reeks of WP:SYSTEMIC and WP:RECENT respectively. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Home media sections are relatively trivial as it is and foreign media in an English encyclopedia will be trickier to find. If a high quality source for foreign (or at least Japanese in Ugetsu's case) can be found, then I'll gladly add them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, in this case I'm wondering if the problem is not so much a lack on information on Japanese releases (which should definitely be there if sources can be found, although I'm pretty sure it's in the public domain here and that's why it's widely available on what are for Japan super-cheap DVD box sets; but see here), as too much emphasis being given to these two particular DVDs. Just saying who published them and when should be enough, without going into special features and the like; if we cut that stuff the section would be down to two short sentences, which by themselves would not merit a separate subheading. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home media section? 

message: I have added (with citations) the previously common English title Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain. This appears to be a mistake for Tales of a Pale and Misty Moon After the Rain, perhaps originating from Bosley Crowther's review in The New York Times  (8 Sep 1954 p. 40) which concludes 'We understand that "Ugetsu" means "pale and mysterious moon after the rain"—which is just about as revealing as a great deal else in this film.' If someone can find a source to confirm that, it would be worth adding as a footnote. jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain