Talk:Kuroneko

message: Kuroneko also appears as the name of a small, randomly appearing, black cat in the Japanese animation, Trigun.
is there a page for this chracter or a page for List of Trigun characters? It could be added as a link here. Andrzejbanas 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Kuroneko (singer). I consider that the page "Kuroneko" needs to be disambiguated, for this word is a common noun which indicates general black cats.Nemsirp (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuroneko 

message: This bears a weird resemblance to the story, at least as summarized by Inui. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: In case anyone hasn't seen this film, it is actually set in a bamboo grove. The bamboo is a motif of the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  in a groovy grove 

message: At this page, an external link from the Japanese wikipedia article on this topic, we find an extensive description of the plot of the film, written by a Japanese native. In it we find "yabu no naka" mentioned six times excluding the title: "藪の中の女の屋敷", "藪の中の家", "藪の中の屋敷", "藪の中の屋敷", "藪の中の道", and finally "藪の中の家". In each case, the words "yabu no naka" refer to the house and the pathway. If it is true that Japanese people exclusively use the words "yabu no naka" to refer to a mystery cat, rather than an actual bamboo grove, should someone not urgently inform this misguided native speaker? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found both of those pages too. The first is USERG and can't be accepted; it also does not contradict my interpretation of the title, as it is clearly overusing the name of the Akutagawa story in its description on purpuse. ALC is good most of the time, but in this case it has failed to give any examples that accurately reflect the usage of the phrase yabu no naka. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK you don't seem to be open to discussion, so I'm just going to remove your edits from the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The above sarcastic comments are offensive, and their content provides no excuse for shutting me out of editing this article. The two pages you cite, one of which is someone's personal website, do not prove anything. The fact is that Kōjien and Daijisen, the two most widely-used dictionaries in Japan, both give the same definition I have of the phrase yabu no naka. Your having found two pages that use it in a different sense is irrelevant. I can't believe you would contest the definition of a word given in Kōjien based on some guy having used in a slightly different way! It is looking more and more like you are deliberately reverting all my edits to this and other pages solely because I am the one making the edits. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The above sarcastic comments are offensive - They conclusively demonstrate that you were talking complete rot in the discussion above. So they do make you do look like a complete fool, I agree. The two pages you cite, one of which is someone's personal website, do not prove anything. - yes, they do. They conclusively prove that the analysis which you have been defending on this page is completely wrong. It is looking more and more like you are deliberately reverting all my edits to this and other pages solely because I am the one making the edits - No, I removed your edits because they were incorrect. I removed your edits on other pages because they were incorrect. And I think you know it. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WHEN HAVE I EVER IMPLIED THAT yabu no naka DOES NOT ALSO MEAN "in a bamboo grove" !? I say both possible translations of the Japanese title need to be included. The identities of the two women are clearly meant to be a mystery to Yorimitsu, Gintoki and so on. That is why the film uses the phrase yabu no naka in its title. The phrase, as defined by the only reliable dictionary specifically cited in this debate (assuming WWWJDIC doesn't count), means . elvenscout742 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A mistaken Japanese native speaker writes on the film

message: This "English translation" is original research at least as much as the translation I provided is. JoshuSasori has not cited any reliable sources that state that the title of the film only takes the (rarer) literal meaning of yabu no naka. Yabu no naka appears in all reliable Japanese dictionaries as having one meaning, and JoshuSasori has WP:SYNTHesized this with his own interpretation of the film's plot (why is the bamboo grove a theme in the film? and why is that theme different from something being lost/obscured/impossible to determine the truth, as it always is when Japanese speak of yabu no naka?). I have one valid interpretation of the title and JoshuSasori has another one: they are both borne-out by reliable sources (dictionaries). This is why I suggested including both possible translations. JoshuSasori has deleted mine without ever providing a reasonable argument or any source that says the film-makers did not mean to use the phrase yabu no naka as it is always used in Japanese and as it is defined in every Japanese dictionary. He has also constantly shifted his argument from "we shouldn't mention Akutagawa or claim this film is named after an Akutagawa story" (I never actually made this claim) to "we shouldn't make any reference to the idiomatic meaning of the title at all", making it almost impossible to debate constructively. It does seem increasingly that he is trying to force me out of this article by micromanaging/removing all of my recent contributions, as he has also done with Double Suicide of Sonezaki and Tadao Sato. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PROTIP: If someone states that they think something is original research, a fabulous notion is to put a citation onto it, and prove them wrong. Probably the worst thing to do is to barrack at the person on the talk page about how or why you have come to the conclusion, which actually proves them right - it is indeed your original research. If you spent a half the time doing article edits you spend on talk pages, you would be making a lot more useful contributions. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black cat in a bamboo grove" 

message: Should we mention that his original name was Hachi and he made up the name "Yabu-no-Gintoki" (藪ノ銀時) to appear more imposing when he was fighting the Emishi in battle? Saying that "Gintoki was a fortuitous soldier who killed the enemy general" isn't entirely accurate in this context, and one of the article's sources sees fit to go into some detail on this matter.
Additionally, I added a macron to the name of the historical figure Minamoto no Raikō and a macron and more accurate spelling for Rajōmon, and wikilinks for both. I don't recall whether they actually pronounced Rajōmon in the film, but it clearly appears written as 羅城門, and this is apparently more accurate to the period. The subtitles of the version I watched also spelled it "Rajomon". But then again, the subtitles of the version I watched read "Raiko Minamoto" when anyone with ears could hear him being named as "Minamoto no Raikō". What a mess! :P
elvenscout742 (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just WP:BEBOLD and do the edits, use the talk page to discuss when there is a disagreement. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did. I added the above comment here since the background for my edits was a little too long/complicated to detail in an edit summary. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the protagonist 

message: I forget whether the film actually names them. They are obviously meant to be Emishi/Ainu, and their leader's name is specifically mentioned. Is it OR to mention this point in the article based only on what's in the film and an external study of Japanese history of the period, though? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is classic WP:SYNTH. For the plot summary, it's OK to watch it and write what you see, but it's not OK to write analysis. If you want to put the analysis in, find a source for it. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The enemy Hachi is fighting at the start of the film 

message: My addition of links for these two names has now been reverted twice. I am not sure why they are inappropriate, since JoshuSasori has only said they are "inappropriate" without any reference to Wikipedia policy. Not sure if he was simply enforcing a guideline on plot summaries from WP:MOSFILM I went and checked there. There is no specific rule against including links to the articles on real-world historical figures and settings in works of historical fiction like this. In fact, several film articles include these such links and have FA status (Borat and 300 (film) being obvious examples). What gives? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks to [[Minamoto no Yorimitsu]] and [[Rashōmon]] 

message: The lead states that the movie takes place in the Heian period, but the first line of the plot states the Sengoku period. There's a bit of a difference between the two. At the mention of the Emishi, I'm inclined to think Heian period, but if so, should the references to samurai be removed? I didn't think the samurai were established as a class until after the Heian period. If other editors concur, I suggest substitution of the word "warrior" for "samurai". Boneyard90 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on history, but the word used in the film is "samurai". See, for example, here. I don't see why Wikipedia should "correct" historical inaccuracies in film plots, so I would rather leave it as "samurai". As for the period of the film, I didn't write either Sengoku or Heian. This review of the film seems to suggest it is set in the Heian period, and this one also. Elvenscout747 has a book about the film so maybe he can check it. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Japanese term used in the movie is not "samurai" (侍), but rather wakamusha (若武者), a more accurate translation of which would be "young warrior". So we would not be correcting the plot, but rather the poorly translated sub-titles, which were probably translated thus for better recognition. But you're right, we shouldn't necessarily "correct" a reliable source; however, if you are so inclined, it is permissible to point out the inconsistency with history, or even the inconsistency between the Japanese script and the English sub-title, for the benefit of Japanophile readers who might also notice and think it's an error on the part of Wikipedia editors, when the text is actually an accurate reflection of some translator's error from 40+ years ago. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in error. Please click on the link to the youtube video in my previous post above. It should start at 43 seconds in to the trailer. You can hear the lead actress, Nobuko Otowa, very clearly say the word "samurai" twice. I did not notice the word "wakamusha" in the trailer, although that term may be used elsewhere in the film. This is not based on the subtitles of the film. If you cannot understand spoken Japanese and need visual confirmation, the DVD version contains subtitles in Japanese as well as English and you could check it using the Japanese subtitles. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Further, in case the trailer is not enough, I spot-checked against the film itself. The dialogue from 15:00 to 21:00 uses the word "samurai" repeatedly: 19:10:これからはさむらいだ / 19:15:いくさはそのさむらいをへんかするぞ / 19:45:さむらいはなんでもとりほうだいやの. In the dialogue with Raiko: 30:15 and 30:45: Raiko is called さむらいのとうりょう. Also, the Japanese-language subtitles are on the Kindai Eiga Kyokai version of the DVD in Japan, but they don't seem to be on the Criterion Collection version. I am putting these in kana rather than kanji, because they are my transcriptions. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're right. I didn't have sound available, I was looking at the casting role, at 1:38 in the trailer. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More examples: at 42:00: こじきさえやぶのぎんときさまはつよいさむらいじゃとゆっておるぞ.  At 42:23: さむらいののどもとをくいている. At 1:17:20:　ようかいはさむらいにむごいころされかた / さむらいにうらみ / さむらいのいきち, and several more examples from both Raiko and Gintoki. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so "samurai" stays, but what is to be done about the Heian/Sengoku disparity? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "sengoku" is just speculation, skipping through the film I cannot see where it says that the film is set in any era at all. The Heian period seems to be a conclusion drawn from the presence of a character called "Minamoto no Raiko", so would it not need to be sourced from somewhere to avoid being seen as WP:SYNTH? This is also my complaint about linking the gate "rashomon"/"rajomon", it is not necessarily a historically-based film, don't we need sources to put in links like that? JoshuSasori (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't see a problem linking Rashomon, as it may help the reader to place the period. If "rashomon" is mentioned in the film, and there's a "rashomon" in Japan, then the article should be linked. The only time the link should be avoided is when it is obviously the wrong article; if for example, the only "rashomon" article was about a 20th century African princess (or whatever). In this case, in absence of any direct reference to period in the movie, it is not "obvious" whether or not the movie "rashomon" refers to the "rashomon" in the Wikipedia article. Therefore, it is safe to link to the article, and the let the reader draw his own conclusions. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Minamoto no Yorimitsu is a character in the film. The only scene of warfare in the film is between imperial troops and Emishi in Tohoku. Therefore, the film is set in the Heian period. Additionally, I can see someone complaining that the film mentions "Rajomon" but the link is to "Rashomon": they are the exact same thing, and the director's diary comments on how the place they shot was not the real Rajomon but they shot it as that. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, given the director's comments, I would say leave it un-linked in the plot, maybe call it "in a place called Rajomon" (no link), and in a production section, it should say, "was shot on location in Rashomon (linked)". For the period, you don't have to say "it took place in ~ period", but you CAN say, the "battle between X and the Emishi, an ethnic group active in the Heian period" (links and reference). Same thing with Minamoto: "The movie portrays Minamoto X (Born-Died), a noble/warrior/rocket-man who lived during the X period"(reference). Boneyard90 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The film's subtitles (at 32:27) say that the scene of warfare is in "Ezo" which is not Tohoku, it is the old name of Hokkaido. There is absolutely no mention of Emishi or Tohoku anywhere in the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Self-correction, at 48:03 Gintoki mentions "Tohoku": "さんねんまえにとうほくのいてきをうつにいくさにくわえられていった". However, he does not say that the battle took place in Tohoku, and the subtitle at the scene of the battle says "Ezo". Either way, I don't agree with adding these links into a plot summary. The plot summary should not contain these kinds of tit-bits. If there is a source on historical accuracy then that would be OK to add in the reception section. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I really do not care what Ezo means or what you think it means or what it might have meant or will mean in the future. The very fact that including these kinds of details leads to exactly these kinds of ridiculous nitpicking arguments is exactly why I don't agree with including them in the plot. The plot summary should be a simple summary of the film's events, not a "helpful historical guide" full of silly easter-egg wikilinks to all kinds of historical whatnots to "help the reader". Please stop "helping the reader" like that and just write a plot summary which summarizes the plot of the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are making straw-man arguments -- I never added a single Easter egg link to any of the articles that you have started disputes with me on. I added I think three useful Wikilinks to this article's plot summary, in accordance with the MOS, and you have accused me of OR in response. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I still don't think it's fair that JS can write an entire plot summary without citing any sources, but to include a couple of Wikilinks I need to find reliable secondary sources that specifically use modern Japanese terminology to describe a period film. (E.g., no Japanese needs to be told that the battle takes place in "Tohoku", when any Japanese who are interested know that that is what "Ezo" means, so sources that say "Tohoku" are difficult to find.) This article doesn't "belong" to JS anymore than it does to me or Boneyard. Anyway, I found two apparently independent sources that specifically state that the film takes place in the mid-Heian period, near Rajōmon gate. Additionally, another article JS has edited but seems to dislike me editing contains a map of Japan with the province in which the film is principally based marked in red but no one seems to be complaining about that? elvenscout742 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: About a week ago I also found this, which appears to be a spontaneous film review by a lawyer: I wasn't sure if it counted as WP:USERG or if the source was concerned "learned" in the field, though, so I didn't cite it. It does, however, specifically mention Tōhoku-chihō as the setting of the battle. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I once asked about plot summaries at WP:Film. Their policy is that as long as no information exceeds what is in the film (and they shouldn't), then plot summaries generally do not have in-line citations. There are guidelines on length & detail, grammar, etc, but that's about it. Many film articles then have a section like "Historical inaccuracies" or "Production" which includes something about the location or why the director deviated from historical accuracy. As for "Ezo", personally, I have rarely to never heard it used outside the context of Hokkaido, and have only recently read that it could mean islands further north of Hokkaido. That doesn't mean it also wasn't once used for Tohoku. As for "modern Japanese", they, like most people, can have short memories, and I would say that events following the Meiji restoration have a clearer impact on national consciousness then frontier conflicts 1000 years ago. Japanese I have asked associate "Ezo" with Hokkaido. If Elvenscout has a map of "Ezo", and all the historical uses for "Ezo", from Tokyo to the Kuriles, and it comes from a reputable source, I say put it in. If you are explaining something, like "it takes place in Ezo, which is known as the land of Puff the Magic Dragon" (whatever), then yes, you need sources. If they're difficult to find, we know it's on the contributor. If there are sources that back up the historical Rashomon-spelled-Rajomon, then I say let the links stay in the plot summary. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's a reason Rajōmon redirects to Rashōmon on English Wikipedia, and on Japanese Wikipedia the article on the gate is called Rajōmon and Rashōmon is a disambiguation page. I'm sure there are millions of reliable sources that back this reason up. As for "Ezo", the early-modern/modern Japanese usage is pretty irrelevant here, since Shindo apparently did his homework on the issue and the historically accurate definition for the Heian period (again, if Minamoto no Yorimitsu is in the film, it is set in the Heian period) is "anywhere where the people called Ezo live", and it would be anachronistic to show Yamato troops in Hokkaido at this time. If the battle took place in what is now Iwate Prefecture, it would be equally anachronistic to call it Iwate, and his choices would have been either Mutsu Province or Ezo. Additionally, while they're not reliable sources, apparently some Japanese people have also done their homework on this issue, and while it's only peripherally linked, the character 夷 appears to denote Eastern Barbarians in particular, while 狄 denotes Northern Barbarians. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in historical details 

message: Ok, I'm pretty much out at this point. Someone deleted the "Sengoku" mention, and that means that the second of the two points I brought up have been resolved. You all can continue. To ES: I recommend you try not to overshoot the point of the article, it's about a movie, not a historical mystery that needs to be unraveled; and despite whatever you know or have read, everything needs a reference. Remember, you can not draw conclusions for the reader, no matter how obvious the connection between two points might be. To JS: Seriously think about working on those diplomacy skills. Carry on. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think it's fair that JS can write an entire plot summary without citing any sources, but to include a couple of Wikilinks I need to find reliable secondary sources that specifically use modern Japanese terminology to describe a period film. (E.g., no Japanese needs to be told that the battle takes place in "Tohoku", when any Japanese who are interested know that that is what "Ezo" means, so sources that say "Tohoku" are difficult to find.) This article doesn't "belong" to JS anymore than it does to me or Boneyard. Anyway, I found two apparently independent sources that specifically state that the film takes place in the mid-Heian period, near Rajōmon gate. Additionally, another article JS has edited but seems to dislike me editing contains a map of Japan with the province in which the film is principally based marked in red but no one seems to be complaining about that? elvenscout742 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: About a week ago I also found this, which appears to be a spontaneous film review by a lawyer: I wasn't sure if it counted as WP:USERG or if the source was concerned "learned" in the field, though, so I didn't cite it. It does, however, specifically mention Tōhoku-chihō as the setting of the battle. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I once asked about plot summaries at WP:Film. Their policy is that as long as no information exceeds what is in the film (and they shouldn't), then plot summaries generally do not have in-line citations. There are guidelines on length & detail, grammar, etc, but that's about it. Many film articles then have a section like "Historical inaccuracies" or "Production" which includes something about the location or why the director deviated from historical accuracy. As for "Ezo", personally, I have rarely to never heard it used outside the context of Hokkaido, and have only recently read that it could mean islands further north of Hokkaido. That doesn't mean it also wasn't once used for Tohoku. As for "modern Japanese", they, like most people, can have short memories, and I would say that events following the Meiji restoration have a clearer impact on national consciousness then frontier conflicts 1000 years ago. Japanese I have asked associate "Ezo" with Hokkaido. If Elvenscout has a map of "Ezo", and all the historical uses for "Ezo", from Tokyo to the Kuriles, and it comes from a reputable source, I say put it in. If you are explaining something, like "it takes place in Ezo, which is known as the land of Puff the Magic Dragon" (whatever), then yes, you need sources. If they're difficult to find, we know it's on the contributor. If there are sources that back up the historical Rashomon-spelled-Rajomon, then I say let the links stay in the plot summary. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's a reason Rajōmon redirects to Rashōmon on English Wikipedia, and on Japanese Wikipedia the article on the gate is called Rajōmon and Rashōmon is a disambiguation page. I'm sure there are millions of reliable sources that back this reason up. As for "Ezo", the early-modern/modern Japanese usage is pretty irrelevant here, since Shindo apparently did his homework on the issue and the historically accurate definition for the Heian period (again, if Minamoto no Yorimitsu is in the film, it is set in the Heian period) is "anywhere where the people called Ezo live", and it would be anachronistic to show Yamato troops in Hokkaido at this time. If the battle took place in what is now Iwate Prefecture, it would be equally anachronistic to call it Iwate, and his choices would have been either Mutsu Province or Ezo. Additionally, while they're not reliable sources, apparently some Japanese people have also done their homework on this issue, and while it's only peripherally linked, the character 夷 appears to denote Eastern Barbarians in particular, while 狄 denotes Northern Barbarians. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues now resolved