Talk:Sayonara

Translation

I thought that the japanese didnt have a word for goodbye, and that sayonara is more like till we meet again?

"sayonara" is actually a pretty final form of "Goodbye", implying that they won't meet again.--88.105.250.126 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Literally, "sayonara" (さよなら) means "since it is this way [that we must part]". It is somewhat between "goodbye" and "farewell". "sayonara" never used within your "in-group" (your family, girlfriend/boyfriend, or co-workers) unless you expect that this is a final parting (one of you is dying, you're breaking up with your lover, this is your last day at work,...). In an "in-group" setting you'll use some form of "itte-kimasu" (いって来ます - "I am leaving and coming back"), to which the people seeing you off will say some form of "itte-[i]rasshai" (行ってらっしゃい - "go, and be welcome back!").

If you're a houseguest at a Japanese home, you would use "itte-kimasu"/"itte-[i]rasshai" while you are staying there since you are temporarily "in-group". When you leave to go back home, you are exiting the "in-group" and then "sayonara" is appropriate even if there's already plans for a future visit. So it isn't quite as final as "farewell".

In the case of the book, "sayonara" mean "farewell" to the Japanese girlfriend; and in the case of the movie, "sayonara" means "screw you, we quit!" (he to the US military, and she to Takarazuka).

Fair use rationale for Image:Original movie poster for the film Sayonara.jpg

Image:Original movie poster for the film Sayonara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The song

Who wrote the song? Who performed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I don't know who sang it but Rogers & Hammerstein wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.27.169 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy is Missing / Misleading and the True Situation Should be Mentioned for Comparison

In reality, General MacArthur eliminated the prohibition against "fraternization" and liberalized the military marriage policy in Japan very early on, either at the end of 1946 or the beginning of 1947. After that, it was simply a matter of the applicant servicemember putting in the formal paperwork.

By 1950, there are recorded 50,000 marriages throughout Asia (including Japan, Korea, Philippines, and the rest) with U.S. military members. There are excellent references that could be cited on this subject and policy, giving all the marriage data, even country-by-country. One book is War brides of World War II / by Shukert, Elfrieda Berthiaume.

Starhistory22 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Contrary to the OP's assumption, there is evidence that the film is indeed the primary topic. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Sayonara → Sayonara (film)
• Sayonara (disambiguation) → Sayonara

– A Japanese term of "goodbye" has been commonly known, but no article of it has existed yet. I don't know why the 1950s film has been considered a primary topic, but this must be challenged. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support no primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support more clear and precise. Khestwol (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the nom notes, there is no article on the dictdef of sayonara. As for the articles we do have, the film would seem to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage for sure (by April 2015 pageviews):
  • Sayonara: 4,318 views
  • Sayonara (novel): 450 views
  • Sayonara (Mary MacGregor song): [http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/sayonara%20(Mary%20MacGregor%20song) 100 views
  • Sayonara (Orange Range song): [http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/sayonara%20(Orange%20Range%20song) 110 views
  • USS Sayonara II (SP-587): 52 views
  • Sayonara (disambiguation): 428 views

That's 79% of all views when you include the disambiguation page, and 86% when you exclude it. Even discounting the page views due to the basename bump, it is pretty clear that this topic is the primarytopic for "Sayonara" by usage. As for long-term significance, I'd say that the Marlon Brando movie has shown good staying power, too. It's now over 50 years old, and is still clearly a popular topic. The dictdef of course does not factor into the question because there is no article, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Dohn joe (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• • As this article is sitting at the base location, we cannot assume it is automatically the primary topic based on usage, since people can get frustrated at landing at the wrong location, or go directly to the search results page instead of the dab page. That's the case with all instances where we discuss the hits to the base name location. More telling is the lack of primarity for the film in google books [1] and google scholar [2] ; if we move the film away, then in 3 to 6 months, we can see what actual hits the movie is getting, versus how many people land here just because it is at the base location. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    I agree, and said above, that there is a basename bump for the current article. I just find it hard to believe that 40% of the people who come to this article are looking for a different WP article. And a Google Books search reinforces the relative long-term significance of the movie against the other notable uses of "Sayonara". Your plain search for "Sayonara" returns dozens of non-notable works that have "Sayonara" in the title. Those non-notable uses do not count in our analysis here because WP does not write articles on non-notable topics. (Well, of course there are plenty, but they get removed when discovered.) Look at the Google Books results for the notable topics:

    • "Sayonara brando"
    • "Sayonara michener" (many of which are simple instances of the book, not secondary mentions of it)
    • "Sayonara 'mary macgregor'"
    • "Sayonara 'orange range'"
    • "uss sayonara"

    You'll find that the movie compares favorably to any of the other notable topics called "Sayonara", which affirms the pageviews, and shows the relative long-term significance of the movie compared to the other uses on WP. Dohn joe (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per John Doe. If we were a dictionary, the word Sayonara would certainly be the primary topic, or at least have an article. But we are not and it does not. Therefore the decision comes down to the topics we actually do have with this name. The stats above show a primary topic. Even if we were to assume that every single person looking for a different subject came first to this page and not through a link or autofill (which I think we can agree is extremely unlikely) and subtract those views we still get a pretty clear result. John Doe's follow up point on google book results also effectively addresses the other issues raised.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Hardly the world's best-known film. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question -- this has been the argument on pretty much all of the !votes so far, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that this is the case. Are there any actual qualitative examples that show any other topics come close to gaining enough coverage for this not to be the primary? Personal opinion does not equal a valid argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Necrothesp: This actually is a pretty well known, important film. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards, and won in four categories. See the article for the impact on racial tolerance attributed to the film. Dohn joe (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as seen in User:Dohn joe's figures above. Supporters of a move have stated "no primary", "more clear and precise", and "hardly the world's best-known film" without evidence. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY and the (well-known)[3] film is more important than all other encyclopedic topics combined. —  AjaxSmack  00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bunraku

Is the bunraku puppet show some famous play? Do we have an article on it? --Error (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)