Talk:Howl's Moving Castle (film)

message: Anything on the original score?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.150.204 (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: Is it worth mentioning the steampunk (or maybe dieselpunk or some other type of fictional technology) like setting in the Differences between film and novel section? I might be wrong, but I don't think the book has things like giant, flying battleships or motorised carriages, and they have a pretty large role in the film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.189.52 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steampunk-esque setting 

message: It says here on this page that Mamoru Hosoda QUIT, after Studio Ghibli did not approve any of his concepts. However on his OWN page it simply says that they pulled him from the project after he failed to produce a concept they found acceptable. 
Anyone know which (if either) of these is accurate? 121.217.141.124 (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source on Hosoda's article supports the claim that he quit. I have made the change. Reach Out to the Truth 15:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy? 

message: I am planing to change the citation style to sfn citations as part of an overhaul, because when using book sources, they provide for easier verifiability. If anyone has any objections, however, feel free to revert me, and I'm happy to discuss them here. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Hello. I think the reception section may need to be expanded with other reviewers from newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and some Japanese sources (The Japan Times, etc.). Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord Sjones23; I think that's an excellent idea. I would especially appreciate it if you could add some stuff from Japanese sources. I've found a few scholarly works on this film, which will be very useful for a "themes" section, but will also give us some stuff for "reception." Also, I hope you have no objections to the citation style change? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no objections to the style change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent: I've implemented it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: and anybody else who is watching this page; do you think we need to insert a brief section on each character? I'm personally ambivalent as to that sort of organization, but there seems to be fair amount of information. On the other hand, most of it is already covered in the plot, themes, and comparison section. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Howl's Moving Castle (film). 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/20110605230659/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2007.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2007.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) 16:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How come it got removed again? I didn't put it in the production company section this time and nobody cared when I did the same thing to the other Ghibli movies (as only the animation studio is allowed for anime films). Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for missing this post. Essentially, the issue is of undue weight in the lead, and of requiring reliable sources. Even if you can source this properly, the place for it is the production section. What happens on other pages is not relevant here. Vanamonde (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is THIS page the only acceptation? Just asking, and have you even seen the movie to begin with? Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those questions are relevant (but yes, I've seen it a number of times). The variety source above is the only one that seems reliable, and the mention given to the other studios there is so short that the content is definitely out of place in the lead. I don't understand your resistance to doing what I've asked; finding more detailed sources, and then adding the content in the production section. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Production Company Situation 

message: Something I've found out today, Turnip head was clearly inspired by a symbol found on italian planes of 22º Gruppo autonomo caccia terrestre during WW2. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That link isn't working for me at the moment; but in any case, we need a reliable source for that suggestion. Also; while Miyazaki explored war vs pacifism a fair bit in the film, the book barely mentions those themes; and Turnip Head is certainly present in the book. Vanamonde (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agreed, that's why I didn't add it to the article. Although knowing Miyazaki's fascination with WW2 planes in general and italian planes in particular it seems extremely plausible. Maybe someone can turn up with a Miyazaki quote somehow. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnip Head inspiration 

message: "Symphony Suite, an album published on 21 January 2004 which in"
2005? 
--Dignitee (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: In the section 'Pacifism', an author named Andrew Osmond is quoted, but his name doesn't appear in the references or in the bibliography. In fact, his quotes are attached to another source, 'Kimmich 2007', which doesn't make any sense. Can someone explain this mistake or fix it? Centsmira (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Kimmich is reporting Osmond's words; lacking full access to either source at the moment I cannot make a change, but I don't see it as a major problem in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you. Centsmira (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Osmond 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About referencing Online Ghibli 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: novel article moved to Howl's Moving Castle (novel); film article not moved. There's a clear consensus that the novel is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. However, participants were much more divided as to whether the film was primary, or whether this was a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. The main question around which the primary-topic discussion revolved was the first criteria, primariness by usage. It was shown that the film receives an appreciable lead in pageviews, but that the novel has a narrow lead in Google Scholar results. Participants were divided on whether the pageview lead was sufficient to establish a primary topic or not; the Google Scholar results were posted relatively late in the discussion and thus did not attract significant direct discussion. Personally, I don't see a consensus on whether the film is the primary topic or not. However, the strong consensus against the current status quo (novel holding primary title) means that a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close is the best solution here. To that end, I believe the WP:NOPRIMARY result is optimal; the mixed results of the provided evidence make it challenging to argue that one topic is uncontroversially primary, and moving to NOPRIMARY is in line with the conservative approach that I feel NOTCURRENTTITLE closes should take when feasible (contra moving the film to the primary title, which would be a more dramatic change and harder to undo).As I'm establishing a DAB at the base name, I should also note that a few participants expressed opposition to a primary DAB on the grounds that it would result in no readers landing directly on their desired article; however, I placed fairly little weight on this argument, as it achieved only a slim minority of support and seems to be grounded in a fairly uncommon reading of primary topic policy. Thus, this did not shake my stance that a WP:NOPRIMARY result would be best aligned with the interests of the discussion participants and the guidance of WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Move. I also support the move, since the film very much seems to be the primary topic. While it's based on the book, the film definitely seems to be the topic that the average user would search for, so it should be presumed to be the primary topic. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 September 2023