This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
The article says that the movie is rated R18+ in Canada, that is a questionable statement. Movie ratings are a provincial, not federal responsibility, so the rating varies by province. There are provinces that rate it 18+, but not all do. Québec gave it a 13+ rating for violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.155.64 (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user Sjones23 keeps removing the "characters" section of the article, keeping only the "voice cast" portion and renaming the section title to that. I find this unnecessary, because there are plenty of pages with a section dedicated to character descriptions that people like myself enjoy/appreciate. I also spent quite a bit of time editing/adding to that section, so I don't appreciate seeing my effort just erased like that. So, please explain, Sjones23, how was the section unnecessary? Shintaraguru (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: Why did you remove it this time again? It was no longer part of the voice cast. I created its own section. Where does it say in the guidelines that an independent character section is prohibited? Lots of articles have them. Shintaraguru (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem appears that the section appears to be entirely a WP:PLOTONLY description of the characters. You already have a plot section, there is no need to rehash it 13 more times by each character. If you want to include a character section, I suggest you only include a brief (I mean very breif) description of the character followed by real world context from third party reliable sources.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like it, it's pretty neat, but per above, there is too much of it. I think the layout is much better than the table version currently in place, but it needs to be cut down to like a single sentence max of their defining traits, not their actions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: / @Darkwarriorblake: How was I rehashing the plot section? Take a look at the character descriptions again; I added a lot of stuff that's not mentioned in the plot section. Second, everything I wrote is in relation to the characters' personalities and abilities, which are what character descriptions are all about (in the context of this film, at least). If I happen to go in-depth, then so what? What is the point of a character section if it's going to be limited to a brief sentence? For example, if I were to just write for Jubei, "Jubei: The primary protagonist of the film.", then what kind of character description would that be? Seems pointless. I'd rather include descriptions that are detailed and informative. I know a lot of people appreciate this kind of effort put into character descriptions, as it's sometimes hard to find such in-depth analyses elsewhere online. If this is an actual policy of Wikipedia's regarding this issue, then it should be reversed. I really don't see the merit in emphasizing such extreme brevity, as it seems rather anti-encyclopedic in nature. Shintaraguru (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing primary protagonist would be redundant, the protagonist is by definition the primary. I don't know who said re-hashing the plot section, but it is basically cheating to artificially expand the plot section OUTSIDE of the plot section. I like the way you had the names and the Japanese variant, and a brief description of the character and their abilities I think is fair. But it should really only be about a sentence at most. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paging User:89.159.251.169: if you undo my edits, please at least manually change the romanizations, don't revert my work on posting the English cast. Thanks in advance. Starbeam2 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
(This is a reply to both this and the questions you left on my Talk page. I thought it would make more sense to discuss this here. Other users are obviously welcome to chime in.)
Like I said, we're supposed to use Hepburn romanization on Wikipedia (although there are some special cases). You can check this article for details: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. I realize different people have different preferences when it comes to romanization systems, but we're trying to keep things somewhat consistent. I am sorry about the big revert, I realize that might have seemed a bit harsh, but your edit was completely ignoring that one guideline, and in... quite an odd fashion, too. I mean, in a way, it's good that you made sure your changes would not break the links to the various voice actors, but... well, keeping the original Manual-of-Style-compliant spellings (except for that one "Junichi", I guess) would have been a lot simpler. My revert was kind of a "oof, could you please not do that?" knee-jerk reflex, I'll admit, and I didn't notice the English names you had added. My apologies.
As for my remark regarding the name order, I was referring to the characters' names specifically. I have to admit I'm not 100% clear on Wikipedia's preferences when it comes to those. Based on what the Manual of Style is saying, it looks like we're supposed to use the "[spelling and name order] most commonly used in reliable, third-party English-language sources (encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, academic books, academic journals, etc.)". I'm not sure what those "reliable, third-part English-language sources" are supposed to be exactly, here, but I imagine they're likely to use the same spellings and name orders as the official English translation of the movie? But then, is there only one such translation, or several (possibly for an English dub and subtitles)? What name order did they use (if it's not the Japanese order, I guess it's a good thing there's no historical figure in this particular story, or we'd have a weird conflict on our hands)? If they completely ignored Hepburn, long vowels, or misspelled some names (as I'm led to believe based on the current state of the article), should we really simply follow suit? So... yeah. Not sure how to deal with that, personally. If it were entirely up to me, I'd simply use the Japanese order and Hepburn for everything, personally, but as explained above, that's not how it works, here, so... 89.159.251.169 (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, thanks for responding and apologies for the wait/ any tone issues on my end. Hepburn is what i go by technically, tho with a few edits for clarity: i spell vowel kana to the letter and romanize dzu and dji on the rare occasions they are used. Should said vowel kana be pronounced individually and not represent a former diphthong, i use an apostrophe between the two vowels (Shou vs. Ino'ue). I also use an apostrophe to separate syllablic n from n-kana (Ken'ichi vs. Nichi). I avoid macrons as much as possible because most English speakers cannot type them or recognize they signify different sounds. I get Wikipedia's romanization thing is more geared towards strict Hepburn, but most of what i've done isn't far off and i've been intending to ask for an update anyway.
As for individual characters, I always follow standard wiki Japanese romanization/ ordering unless there's a specific plot-related reason for the spelling in Latin letters or there's some other express demand by the author. Also, not to be rude, but i think you should fully make your account beyond just using your IP address. It would make things a lot easier on both our ends. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem.
I mean, a lot of what you're describing is definitely not Modified Hepburn. Those "few edits" you're describing are not exactly minor (to the point where the end result actually feels a lot closer to what you'd get using another existing romanization system altogether). I mean, feel free to ask other users their opinion on the matter, but...?
(And I used to have an actual account, but for some reason (solar flares? aliens?), one day, some weird bug suddenly prevented me from logging in. I haven't tried in a (long) while, and I wouldn't be surprised if said bug somehow evaporated in the meantime, but I can't say I miss that account, personally. I believe creating it wasn't even really my idea in the first place: I seem to remember I pretty much relented when it became more or less obvious that other editors take you more seriously (or even simply finally acknowledge you) when you're not "just an IP address". Never really liked that, whereas it's now clear to me that I actually prefer editing "anonymously" and keeping some healthy distance between me and the project and its not-so-occasional arguments and drama. So, not to be rude either, I'd rather keep doing that, really. It's not like my IP address changes all that often anyway (far from it, in fact).) 89.159.251.169 (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the IP address thing, i won't pester you anymore about it nor anyone else. As for the romanization, i know it's not exactly dead on to Hepburn, but it's closer to that than anything else. Starbeam2 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it arguably is a lot closer to wāpuro rōmaji than it is to Hepburn, modified or otherwise... 89.159.251.169 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article so it would conform to the manual of style for Japan-related articles. I understand that you have different personal preferences when it comes to the romanization of Japanese names, but as explained earlier, this isn't your personal site, and we are trying to keep things consistent. You are obviously free to try and convince the community that your romanization system should be used instead. But please refrain from edit-warring over this.
When it comes to the character names, I tried to follow official English-language material based on what I could find (the English dub, DVD covers, etc), hence "Gemma" and the overall lack of long vowel indication. I couldn't find official English-language sources for the spellings "Doujin", "Genpachi", "Shinkuro" and "Sakaki Hyobu", so I used what I found on sites like IMDb and such instead. Same thing for the "masked samurai" / "覆面武士". And for some reason, the English dub inverted the main character's name to "Jubei Kibagami" but kept the Japanese order for the three other characters who were given full names, so I opted to assume the former was an error and used the Japanese order across the board.
Finally, I reordered the cast section so it would be the same as in the end credits of the movie. 89.159.251.169 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edits i made weren't of the ideal romanization system i first used, however i'll admit that if there's a different way i'll follow it. I'll go now to check exactly what the protocol is for fiction and such. UPDATE: i've read it, didn't realize it covered fictional names. Starbeam2 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
