Talk:Ugetsu

Authenticity check

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

Name of Manor

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)

Possible hoax edit

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)

This .edu site seems to back up most of what's in that edit. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Requested move to Ugetsu

The following discussion is an archived 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: recent move contested; reverted -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Ugetsu (film) → Ugetsu – This is the primary topic for "ugetsu". JoshuSasori (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Support This move seems to have been done just out of boredom. "Ugetsu" primarily refers to the film and the book is primarily called "Tales of Moonlight and Rain." Ribbet32 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This move should be reverted per WP:BRD. The film is way more notable than the book, which isn't normally called Ugetsu anyway, at least not in English. Here is the DVD version of the film currently sold in the North American market, just in case anyone wants to confirm the title. Kauffner (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Why is the film "way more notable than the book"? The film is based on the book, it mentions this fact in its opening credits, it has not the subject of centuries of literary studies like the book has, etc., etc. I agree that the book is not usually referred to simply as Ugetsu, but this is a possible abbreviation of the book's title, and the book is CLEARLY more noteworthy than the film. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2013 (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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Ugetsu → Ugetsu (film) – This film bears the same name as the much better-known book on which it is based, and the book is overwhelmingly more notable than the film version. Google Books search for the word Ugetsu in English without Mizoguchi (the name of the film's director), brings up 16,800 hits[1] and a similar search without the book's author brings up slightly fewer results[2] in English. This despite this film being disproportionately famous, in relation to the source material, in English-speaking countries. However, when one takes into account results in the original language of both the book and the film, results that don't mention the director[3] are more than twice as frequent as those that don't mention the book's author[4]. (I'm not sure why, but most of the hits in the second seem to actually mention Akinari anyway, and several are written by him.) Additionally, since the film states at the start of its opening credits that it is "Based on Ugetsu Monogatari by Ueda Akinari", it is safe to assume that everyone who has seen the film has at least heard of the book, but not necessarily vice versa. Neither work is known to the majority of people in the English-speaking world (the book is known to the majority of Japanese people, but the film isn't). Only film buffs who have gone out of their way to see this film know about it -- and those people are likely to already be aware that it is based on a book. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons above. The movie and book are called different things in English. Deal with it. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The book is principally called Ugetsu Monogatari in English, as consensus is building over at that move request, and Ugetsu is a common abbreviation, and if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in English it should be the book. (It's possible they are both equally "primary", but even then this page would need to be renamed.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - the proposal is missing a ")" after "film". JoshuSasori (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Fixed. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you google Ugetsu -wikipedia, 19 of the top 20 results refer to this subject. The other hit is for an anime character. The book is generally called Tales of Moonlight and Rain, so there is no reason an English-speaker would confuse the two. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, the proposer has shown only extremely weak evidence that the word "ugetsu" minus "monogatari" in English is ever used for anything other than the film, let alone that this is so ambiguous that the film needs to be moved to a different page. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No other article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't be able to say that if I had chosen to request this move in however few days or weeks from now as Tales of Moonlight and Rain gets moved to its correct title Ugetsu Monogatari. That topic is clearly more notable, and Ugetsu is a natural abbreviation for its title. Additionally, the current title of this article is americo-centric anyway. Until I moved to Japan last summer I lived in Ireland, where most of our access to movies is the same as the UK (we called it Marvel's Avengers Assemble). There, we called the film either Ugetsu Monogatari[5][6][7] or Tales of Ugetsu [8] (between around 2001 when VHS became extremely obscure, and 2008 when the film received an official DVD release, the only way for me to see the film without a region-free DVD player was to import the Chinese DVD, whose English title I believe derives from an earlier one used in English-speaking countries). Can someone please explain to me why this article on a Japanese film should use a title that is only used in North America and not in order English-speaking countries? What is the special connection this film has with the United States? elvenscout742 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, can you explain why you think that "Ugetsu" should point at a book called "Ugetsu Monogatari"? You're the one requesting the move, after all. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Who said I wanted that? I think Ugetsu should be a disambiguation page. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You recently moved "Ugetsu" to "Ugetsu (film)" then turned "Ugetsu" into a redirect to "Tales of Moonlight and Rain", so I assumed that was your intention with this requested move. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a preliminary move. I expected you to discuss it rather than immediately revert me and ignore my arguments. Additionally, your recent bad-faith attempt to change this article's assessment under WikiProject Japan despite not actually being a member of said project, again solely to undermine me, has been noted. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And what you did was vandalize a redirect link to make a point. There are links to Ugetsu from all over Wikipedia, and the intended meaning of the links is to link to the film. You moved the film, then changed the film page into a redirect to Tales of Moonlight and Rain, thus making hundreds of pages which link to Ugetsu become mislinked. You made no effort whatsoever to change any of the existing links to Ugetsu into links to Ugetsu (film). Your behaviour, as usual, was nothing less than outrageous. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I know the hound JoshuSasori can't respond here because of his block, but: articles all over Wikipedia DON'T link to Ugetsu. One template that is on a whole load of articles linked (incorrectly) to Ugetsu, and I have just fixed that. he number of pages that actually link to this article is fairly small. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing is lost, for anyone anywhere, by the addition of this helpful precision. Serve the needs of readers rather than those of editors (see WP:TITLE). Noetica^Tea? 00:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I may be a little late to save this RM, but I just noticed that the article Harusame Monogatari is an example of an English-language text on Wikipedia that uses "Ugetsu" to refer specifically to the book. The sad thing is that JoshuSasori, who led the "no-move" side, has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing me on this and other articles... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2013 (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.

Why is this "High importance" to WikiProject Japan?

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"[9] 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[10], 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[11]. 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)

etymology

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)

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)

The word ugetsu is the English title of the film; what link could be more direct? —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

(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)

"Official" British title

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)

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)

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)

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)

Official UK title

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[12] and then later re-released it on Blu-Ray under the same title.[13] In this, they are following the usage of the BFI, the previous distributor of the film on VHS[14][15]

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)

It wasn't removed from the article, it was put under "release/home media". JoshuSasori (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

• This issue relates to the RM and is likely to be of far less interest to readers than it is to editors. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Also, the word "officially" doesn't convey any additional information; It is a WP:PEACOCK word. If Ugetsu Monogatari is the name used to refer to this film in Britain, that does not support the proposed title of Ugetsu (film). Kauffner (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Regarding this: [16]- 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)

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)

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)

I too do not understand what "name-calling" refers to. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

By the way, I thought I could get this through peacefully with logical debate and reasoning, without having to rely on MOS, etc. My change has stood for a few hours and it looks like this might be over, but I should probably point out for posterity that WP:NCF is very clearly on my side here:

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)

Sato material

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)

Which tale?

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ugetsu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "masterpiece" sounds and reads better than "masterwork" IMHO.
  •  Done Both are acceptable but I'm fine with this. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• "It is credited with simultaneously helping to popularize Japanese cinema in the West and influencing later Japanese film." — "It is credited with simultaneously helping to popularise Japanese cinema in the West and influencing later Japanese films."
  • "Film" is properly used to describe cinema collectively. [17] Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot

• It is above the 400-700 barrier (779 words to be exact). Try and trim it down. Otherwise, this section is good.
  • Film (and this plot) is public domain. I have trimmed down unnecessary details, and left what I think is important. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Production

• "Director Kenji Mizoguchi made the affects of war a major theme of his film." — affects or effects?
  •  Done D'oh! Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Mizoguchi was offered to make a film at Daiei Film studios by his old friend Masaichi Nagata." — Can be rephrased as "Mizoguchi was offered to make a film by his old friend Masaichi Nagata at Daiei Film studios."
  •  Done Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• "This story provided a basis for Tōbei's subplot." — Is this mentioned in ref no. 2 (Wakeman 1987), ref no. 4 (Criterion) or in Russell 2011? If so, cite it.
  • The next sentence makes this clear IMO. If anything, this is overcited as stands. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• "while Mizoguchi was willingly absent" — Do you mean to say he gave them room to make their (actors) own improvisations on the scenes? If so, mentioning it would be good.
  •  Done Nothing about improvisations, but clarified. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Southern School in Chinese painting" — Shouldn't it be of instead of in?
  •  Done Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wikilink "geza music". Maybe this ought to help.
  •  Done Never found a link .Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Themes and Release

• Made a slight ce to the former. Nothing wrong in the latter.
  •  Done Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• BTW, a mention of Anderson's opinion on Ugetsu would be good (If it is stated in Wakeman's book). Otherwise, leave it as it is.
• "Ugetsu opens with a long panorama around a lake, a shot which begins on the far shore and then tilts down to reveal the village at the conclusion. It closes with the child and the father offering a bowl of rice at the mother's grave ... with the camera moving off into an upward tilting panorama which describes the movement of the opening." — Borders on WP:QUOTEFARM here. Consider explaining part of the sentence a bit rather than quoting it.
  •  Done Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• Nothing wrong here. This section is good.
  •  Done Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• A few redirects and an error on Rotten Tomatoes. Fix it.
  •  Done I think. Never seen this feature before. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Good job on improving the article, Ribbet32. Address these comments and the article is promoted to GA.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@Ribbet32: Congratulations! Mizoguchi's masterpiece has passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"16th century"?

@Ribbet32: First off, I must apologize for giving the impression of SHOUTING. As I explaijed in my most recent edit summary, this was not my intention. I meant only to emphasize those words, in a manner similar to this, and assumed that given the context it would be obvious that communicating in an angry, shouting manner (to who?) was not the purpose.

Anyway, the film says nothing about either the late sixteenth century or the sixteenth century; it just says the Sengoku period. If you want to give a more specific date, presumably based on obscure details and historical analysis or possibly comparison with the original work, then you need a reliable secondary source; doing so without a citation, implicitly based on the film itself, is a violation of WP:NOR. There is also nothing in WP:FILMPLOT that bans citations of secondary sources; rather it implicitly encourages them in cases like this where a detail we want to write in our summary is not clear from the film itself.

It is also not sufficient to replace an original extrapolation that is probably false ("late 16th century") with an original extrapolation that has a significantly higher probability of being accurate ("16th century") but still is not sourced.

Anyway, what do you think of just replacing it with "Sengoku period" with a wikilink, as I have just done?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I added two sources that state it is set in the 16th century following your edit. Perhaps you didn't see that, but you cannot claim it "still is not sourced" and "not sufficient" and that all I did was replace it with "an original extrapolation". Ribbet32 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see it, no. (Maybe next time you should use your edit summaries to explain how you are addressing the other editor's concerns rather than criticize their wikiquette.) Your edit summary misquoted the policy in a manner that made it look like you were simply removing the tag based on your belief that the plot summary section should not include citations, and since I was linked to the diff itself from an email notification, I didn't see the net increase in the size of the article by your edit. Plus, if something in the plot summary is based on a secondary source rather than the film itself, it should still be cited in the plot summary section, even if the same content appears elsewhere in the article.

Anyway, it looks like neither Haydock nor Balio are Japanologists, so they may very well be repeating an common misconception about the film in American film studies that originates in an oversimplified 1950s subtitle track (I must confess I've never seen the film subtitled, except with terrible subtitles on this Chinese DVD); can you provide the quotes? It seems like if the original works are clearly set in the fifteenth century, then assuming the film is set in the sixteenth century when there is nothing in the film itself to imply such, would be an error on their part, and citing reliable sources for details they got wrong is not generally a good solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shit. Just remembered the reference to Nobunaga, which does place the film in the sixteenth century, although that's the kind of observation that, if I had added it to the article, I might have been accused by JoshuSasori of OR. So it's really more of a question of which would be more useful to our readers in the opening sentence of the plot summary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Home media section?

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)

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)

@Andrzejbanas: 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)

Community reassessment

Ugetsu

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted The main issue appears to be broadness concerns, in particular the legacy section and reception in Japan (which is more a broad issue than a neutrality one). AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The original review was insufficient and should probably be undone. Some examples of problems that were missed despite being present in the reviewed version include:

• an entire paragraph (made particularly prominent by its being the last piece of running prose in the article) of textbook OR;[18][19]
• a fairly clear copyvio image (tied to the above OR, also prominent because of its positioning);[20]
• a prominent, and reoccurring, misuse of a diacritical mark;[21]
• an unsourced claim, in the unsourced plot summary (i.e., implicitly attributed to the film itself, which is explicit that it takes place between 1467-ish and 1568-ish[22]), about the historical setting of the film "in the late 16th century";[23]
• a plain English (as opposed to romanized Japanese) spelling error;[24]

The OR and copyvio image should have been autofail material, and the lack of anything beyond a superficial illusion of stability (the nominator was involved in an edit war over the page back in 2013,[25] the page saw only fairly minor tweaks in the four years thence,[26] and the nominator alluded to the edit warring when they returned to the page a few days before nominating their version of the page for GA[27][28]) is also concerning.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. There's been a lot of bad blood over this article (see here for example), and I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the past. It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk. [29] [30] The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago. He's made clear he associates me with Josh and how little he thinks of me [31] The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited. If he disagrees with a diatric, he can edit it. Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the past I've written literally hundreds of articles on Japanese culture topics, almost none of them less than 3kB in length, so even if your sticking a jab at my article creation/expansion in were not off-topic it would be simply wrong. On top of that, this has nothing to do with "bad blood": your expansion made the article worse, not better, and the GA review that followed immediately after should have noticed this. It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk. I appealed my TBAN almost a year ago, and I have just been gradually noticing the problems with this article since last December; I have no idea what that could have to do with any of this. The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago. Umm ... he got himself banned (without even any direct involvement on my part -- I had already left the project because of his harassment, which in turn was after my change of username), but continued to harass me for years after that. Nothing inexplicable about it: you criticized me for OR (same as he always did), when in fact you were the one engaging in OR (same as he always did); but what any of that has to do with the good article criteria I do not know. The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited. Yeah, I fixed some of them (with not-insignificant opposition from you), but they should not have been there in the first place. The original GA reviewer either passed the article because of the content that should not have been there but missed the problems (the current article includes en entire section called "Legacy" that is only four short sentences), or didn't care to check closely enough that the article had these problems; unless there is community consensus that the article, despite these problems with the initial review, still happens to meet the criteria by accident now that I have fixed the few that I noticed, it should be delisted. Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore. Your battleground mentality is showing through; can we please focus on content? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic response to off-topic "you're holding a grudge against me" accusation. Posting here only because it kinda needs to be addressed and I'm pretty sure I'm not welcome on Ribbet32's talk page.

BTW: I just went back and checked, and I actually told you last September that I had only the faintest recollection of who you were, while you indicated the previous December that you remembered me quite well. I also apologized to you 56 months after the fact for any offense my gruffness at that time may have caused. So it would make damn-near no sense for me to be the one still nursing a grudge here, if anyone is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaving the past aside, as the page stands right now Hijiri88 which of the GA Criterion, listed below, do you feel that the page doesn't satisfy? I'm having some trouble seperating past issues that you've already corrected with those that you think remain. I'm hoping then there can be a discussion about the state of the article meeting those criteria and/or action taken to bring the article up to GA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   C. It contains no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Barkeep49: I can say with confidence that it currently fails 2, 3, 4 and 5. I am less certain about 1 (I fixed the prominent reoccurring misspelling of the protagonist's name -- I think! -- but I didn't notice "sceenwriter" until an IP fixed it, which was the last straw for me filing this GAR) and 6 (the article does contain a reasonable number of images, which if they don't have copyright problems means it's probably OK, but the initial review found the final image to be okay and it clearly wasn't; I'm not the best with image copyrights, which is one of the reasons I don't do GA reviews myself, but I don't think it's safe to assume that everything is okay now that the most blatant copyvio has been removed). As for 2, 3, 4 and 5:

The article still does contain a bit of OR that I missed; I don't want to remove it, though, because it's probably WP:TRUE and verifiable, but not currently verified, which is a problem.

2. I didn't notice until just now, but the paragraph of OR that I removed from the body was also summarized in the lead. Currently, It is credited with [...] influencing later Japanese film is not currently supported by anything in the article body or any external reliable source. Thing is, I don't actually doubt the "truth" of this statement and consequently don't want to blank it, but it needs a source that actually verifies it, without resorting to OR/SYNTH as the reviewed version did. Additionally, the fact that the article included the problematic OR/SYNTH in the first place makes me really suspicious about the other parts of the article I haven't examined in as much detail (I don't have access to a lot of the sources). The default assumption should always be that the article doesn't meet this criterion, with the burden being on those who wish to include the content and get past GAN (or in this case GAR) to get sources that verify it.

The article gave the impression of being broad during the initial review, but with the OR gone this is not the case.

3. The film almost certainly does have a legacy that deserves more than four lines of coverage in our article, and a GA-standard article would describe that without resorting to OR. The article says nothing whatsoever of the film's critical reception in its native Japan, either in the 1950s or later, and has very little to say about its initial critical reception in western countries. Another key aspect of the topic that is mentioned nowhere in the article is the film's title, which literally translates to "Tales of Rain and the Moon", but neither rain nor the moon appear to be mentioned anywhere in the article. I know that it's named after a book which itself had an abstract title, and so the film's title is, in effect, meaningless, but our readers do not know that.

Does ignoring the film's reputation in its native country count as "non-neutral"? If it doesn't then I guess this can be lumped into the above.

4. It's perhaps more a problem of systemic bias than neutrality, but the above lack of anything to say about its reception by Japanese critics and audiences (the studio's anticipation of a domestic commercial failure is not the same thing) is concerning. It's also not clear why the title of the article gives pride of place to the film's US home media title when it hasn't been seen in English-speaking countries outside North America under that title in decades, if ever. (Weirdly the article is written with British spellin -- "popularising", etc. -- despite this.)

Stability is an illusion.

5. All low-vis articles have an illusion of stability because no one ever makes significant edits to them anyway, but in this case any time the article has been the subject of significant attention it was either in the form of edit-warring (as with the variant titles in the lead back in 2013, or the period in which the film is set in 2017) or the nominator adding a large amount of material that on examination is quite problematic. That he hasn't reverted any of my fixes since December would be promising, except that he complained about it above, which indicates that he doesn't actually acknowledge that the content was problematic and would reinsert it if he thought he could get away with it: and technically, since that content passed GA review, he can claim consensus and WP:STATUSQUO against my "unilateral" changes. Undoing the original, inadequate GA review would prevent that. (And the frankly desperate seeming step of aligning himself with an editor who was site-banned five years ago, going so far as to repeat the same memes that were popular among said banned editor's allies back then -- that I "got JoshuSasori banned" and that I changed my username, as though that were some kind of policy violation -- makes it really look like the nominator is either nursing a years-old grudge against me or is deliberately trying to get under my skin so I will give up and walk away so he can have his article back; that kind of OWN behaviour would indicate the article is really unstable.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks. I have deleted the criteria which don't seem to be under discussion. Let me know if that's correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yeah, that about matches. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to thread them so that we can have parallel discussions without any confusion about which part we're talking about.

So I have finished creating threads for areas identified as concerns. Some of the concerns do seem valid but also seem fixable by interested editors (perhaps Hijiri88 or Ribbet32. It would seem like a shame to delist given what seem like resolvable issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

5. Stability

I have always viewed this criteria narrowly. There is either edit warring or there isn't. The claim here is actually one of WP:OWN By definition Good Articles have room for improvement and so a claim of WP:STEWARDSHIP is going to be weaker than with a FA. Regardless of whether Ribbet32 liked the changes that the three different multi-edit editors have made since January there has been no revision and Ribbet has been active the whole time on Wikipedia. Since this is a talk page discussion it strikes me as completely with-in WP:CONSENSUS to express disagreement about content. In the end I just can't see issues with this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

3a Broad in Coverage

This seems like the best claim of a shortfall for GA status but also fixable. Are there sources which can be found to remedy? While I am not ignorant of Japanese film (especially of this era) it feels like other editors would be better positioned to find high quality sources to add context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1a Well Written

I admit that spelling/grammar proofreading isn't my strongest area as an editor but I'm not seeing any issues with the article in this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

4 Neutrality

This is tied into 3a but does concern me given current composition of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain

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)