Talk:Ishirō Honda

message: The quality of this article is lacking, it's almost stub status.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Short article

message: Seeking further discussion on whether content on the TV wiki table should be presented like this or presented like this. Armegon (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes! That's exactly what I was proposing above, see here, by combing the old edit with the new edit. The episode titles and airdates would be covered in an EFN in the wikitable's notes column. The info would still be there, just moved to a different area that's still accessible to readers. Armegon (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think putting that in an EFN is a terrible idea. It'll look cluttered down there, and not every reader will see it. If it's going to be on the page, it should really be on the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks equally as cluttered down they way it is now. The whole point of the EFN is to avoid clutter. My edit was following the recommendations of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, but since the episode list/airdates don't want to be lost, the EFN was the best compromise I came up with. Readers won't miss it. It will still be there via the EFN link. Armegon (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  I'm a bit confused. Which parts specifically of both edits do you propose mixing? And when you say footnotes, are you referring to the EFN I proposed? Armegon (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the two examples in the opening statement, which were each unhelpfully labelled as "presented like this".  When I said "first" I was referring to the first example and when I said "second" I was referring to the second example.  Any lengthy note should be shifted into a footnote, particularly if it would be repeated in several cells.  However, I'm not saying that the footnotes should be full of trivia; it still has to be notable information to be included in the article.  If the sources are properly archived, readers can always go to them for more details. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. So does the first example match what you're proposing? Armegon (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

text: So how should we proceed with the wikitable in a way that can reach a consensus? Andrzejbanas, I'd appreciate it if contributed more to this discussion since you originally opposed and reverted my edit. Armegon (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't weigh in here because I figured I'd said what I wanted to say earlier. Generally, people here seem to want a mix of both our styles. I still stand we can drop network, and the empty notes section. Otherwise, everything else I feel is good to keep in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I haven't been paying attention, but as long as I can read the table either is fine, my qualm was that you split the table into a separate article when that clearly wasn't needed. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may have been premature on my part. Apologies for that and apologies for pinging you again, but this question is for you. It's been suggested so far to combine both edits. What do you think should be retained and removed for the new wikitable? Armegon (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the TV table, I really don't see the need to supply the TV network in a column and at the same time you're separating the air-date from the episode which is kinda strange. I don't think that should be happening. But I like seeing the episode list, it's not long, or cumbersome. The smaller table lacks all the information the bigger one provides. I was wondering have you thought about a table, where the TV show title is in a single row, with all the episodes underneath? Govvy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like a separate wikitable solely dedicate to the episodes list? Armegon (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I'd Support the table above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I support this too. It would make the table smaller but I feel we should remove the Notes column since it was never used. Armegon (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on the notes ..uhh..note! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we add the new table now or wait for further consensus? Armegon (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Couldn't hurt to tag some others who were involved in the conversation to get a quick yes or no. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could just go ahead and Do It!. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're a man of culture as well! lol Armegon (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. I'm not against changing the table up as I said I agree with it, I figured giving it some time for others who were involved earlier wouldn't be a bad thing for a relatively uncontroversial edit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on TV Wikitable Content Dispute 

message: I noticed on the online copy of Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film, from Godzilla to Kurosawa which I transferred to archive.org, says that he died at 11:30 am when all other sources say that he died at 11:30 pm. Should this be noted in the article? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a good compromise would be if we mention both, like "[Source A] states [this time of death], however, [source B] states [this time of death]". Armegon (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of death 

message: I understand that WP:COMMONNAME exists, and states " it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". However, outside the Godzillaseries, these films don't really have English titles as per Galbraith's book, they were not really released in English-language territories. I don't think it's appropriate to give them English titles as these films were never named that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see very little usage of the native titles and as I have already explained to you Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film and the official website both use the translations. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The key thing is they use "translations", not official release titles and to readers it would be misleading to say it is. It's convenient to have an English-language title (i.e: nobody commons speaking English says Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, they say The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly). I'd suggest to "fix" this, is we have a separate heading for a translated title if there is no official English-language release of the film. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Film titles

message: I don't think we should put "No" in the filmography box as the sources don't actually state that he "did not" do any specific job, but only states what he did do. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it because nearly every article on Wikipedia uses it (eg. Quentin Tarantino filmography#Film) - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 7:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real official standardized formatting per se, but I feel it's more accurate to the source which only says what they are credited as, not what they aren't. If that' makes any sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "No" in the filmography box

message: For this article to be nominated for GA, I need to fix this reference. The CW isn't a reliable source, and I can't find online sources which talk about what happens in the episode (although the man's official website mentions it being based around Honda-san). Any ideas? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Legends of Tomorrow'' reference