Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:My Neighbor Totoro

Good articleMy Neighbor Totoro has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 29, 2022Peer reviewNot reviewed
June 6, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Girls dead, movie references Sayama Incident

While it is true that Ghibli has denied (in Japanese) the reading of the film that sees both girls dead by the end of the film, there are so many factors supporting that reading (Western trolls being particularly unpleasant; numerous parallels with the ill-fated girls of Sayama Incident which occurred in May (Jap: Satsuki) near the movie's setting; Mei seeing the spirits first, Satsuki next, Kanta never; Mei lost and resting under jizou statues, patrons of deceased children; the pair hiding from the rain at another shrine for dead children; the psychopompy catbus posting "Cemetary Way" as a default destination; the ghostly nature of the girls' ultimate visit to their mother's sanatorium; Miyazaki having allegedly originally glossed the movie as showing the girls' spirits finding peace; the original double-billing with Grave of the Fireflies; etc.) that the controversy should certainly be mentioned and the Sayama Incident linked from the page.

Similarly worth mentioning if it's true that Miyazaki's own mother was treated for tuberculosis and survived (producing a much happier read on the essentially ambiguous treatment of the girls' mom). — LlywelynII 22:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Legend

The reason it is a legend does not give support to just deleting every trace of the thing. Stop doing that, that IS vandalism. People are intelligent enough to see it's a legend and draw their conclusions. For reasons of completeness, this should definitely be in the page. Sunstarfire (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. A bizarre interpretation sourced to a single blog is not worthy of inclusion. Mezigue (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that "urban legend" has any part here. However other interpretations of Totoro are far from Snopes territory - particularly implications that the children may be dead. Whether this is definite or not doesn't really matter: the point is that there is a lot of cultural significance to small aspects within the film that pass Western viewers by. It is surely encyclopedic content to explain these types of reference. Whether the film comes to a conclusion or not doesn't matter (just think of the Bladerunner controversies, which WP handles pretty well), as it's quite possible that the film is deliberately ambiguous in its conclusions.
I don't see Sayama as relevant though. It has two girls, but it's also based on violence rather than illness. This isn't a simple case like the Shibuya incident and the film Shinjuku Incident. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The urban legend does need to be included. This is widely associated with Totoro in Japan. And there are a number of sources. The fact it is not true does not mean that people don't associate these urban legends with totoro. Also, the various urban legends are discussed on the Japanese page. There are three sources for this. I agree with Sunstarfire (talk) Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any issues with this going back in, now that it has 3 references, please discuss here. Otherwise I will leave it a little bit to give people a chance to discuss, and re add. Thanks everyone. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any issues? Bueller? :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no objections to the issue, I have modified it and added the section in. Please feel free to discuss if there are any objections or issues Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this shouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and should simply present factual information about the film. There is no place for fan theories or trolling. For example, the Japanese wikipedia article at no point claims that Totoro represents death. Drsmoo (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because wikipedia is based on factual information doesn't mean it cannot have information about theories. In fact there are whole wikipedia pages dedicated to certain ideas or theories that have not been proven but that doesn't mean they cannot be represented in an unbiased way. The urban legend about Totoro is widely associated with the movie and is worth noting when discussing possible meanings behind the film Rachelleliu (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the removed content, and it's difficult to verify the notability with all the offline Japanese sources. Are there any better sources out there? If it's just a relatively obscure fan theory, it's probably better left out. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Different KittenBus Paragraphs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_films_by_Studio_Ghibli#Mei_and_the_Kittenbus Can we find a way to combine or make them the same? They can both still exist, but all information should be uniform between them. xnamkcor (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs

These are listed with the Romanised version, the kanji, and an English gloss; fair enough, but then the whole thing is enclosed in quotes, as in this example:

  • "Gogatsu no Mura (五月の村, "The Village in May")"

This results in at least an ugly ")" ending, which would be neater without the outermost quotes. I cannot see any reason for them, but before I remove them, I would just like to check there is not some obscure Wikirule which compels them. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong running time?

Most other sources cite a 86 minutes running time as is my DVD version of the movie. Is the infobox wrong? 10:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.110.169 (talk)

Netflix Sub/Dub

It may be worth adding to this article that the version of this movie on Netflix is a new sub/dub apparently [1]. I would do it myself, but I'm terrible at Wikipedia editing. 99.252.158.137 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-releases-21-studio-ghibli-masterpieces-around-the-world

Year set is unverifiable

This article has had "1958" given as the year the story is set for the past 13 years, this is based on an edit which sources a calendar — not in the movie — but in a real-life replica of the Kusakabe house in Moricoro Park, Japan.

There is contrary evidence given in an old entry on this talk page where a calendar in the movie shows an April set on a Monday, within the 50s this can only be 1957. I'm more inclined to believe this, but truth is, it's original research, and actually there's no way to verify what year it was set. JAYFAX (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty School Dropout While there are times where redlinking is appropriate, this movie has come out decades ago, and it is unlikely that the red links you added back will become an article, because it is likely unnotable. See WP:REDYES for more info TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Literal" translation

I removed this: (literally|Neighbour of Totoro) from the lead, because it is simply wrong. It is not clear that any more "literal" translation helps the reader in any way. We have an editor producing the clumsy "Next door's Totoro", but at least getting the grammar the right way around, and another getting the grammar completely wrong, with "Neighbour of Totoro". The relevant grammatical point is the Japanese is (everywhere) head-final, and particles like no (の) allow a noun on the left to qualify the noun on the right. So tonari ("next door") qualifies Totoro. It does not necessarily indicate possession, and cannot necessarily be translated with "of"; in this case it simply means "The Totoro who lives next door". The only part of the English title not directly mapping to anything in the Japanese is "My", and in some contexts the same expression could indeed refer to "Your neighbour Totoro", or "Mr Smith's neighbour Totoro". I suggest that no "literal" translation is needed. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks to Baffle gab1978 for the c/e and adding the cn tags, which I've addressed. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on this article for review. Will read through the article over the next couple of days and provide my commentary in the table below. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed article against some of the sections below, will continue to review over the coming days. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I have added some additional comments/replies to some of the points addressed, as well as new points from the recent edits from other users. There are still outstanding points below which require addressing. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I have flagged in the below the issues which still require addressing. Please ensure these are covered off at your earliest convenience. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Lead: Full stop at end of "on March 7, 2006", however sentence continues past citation
 Done
  • "Production"
    • "The storyboard set in the town Matsuko in 1955"; slightly confusing, not sure what this means exactly.
I've slightly changed the wording.
  • Thanks, this makes much more sense now. There are now two instances of "originally" in the same paragraph however, would be better to find a different synonym to replace either of these.
Nota bene* This additional point still requires addressed.
Apologies for the slow pace. I'm kind of taking a semi-weekend Wikibreak. I've addressed two suggestions today and will do more in the next few days. Thanks for your understanding. VickKiang (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done- I've swapped that for "initially".
    • Stockhausen is included within the "Music" section by only their surname, however all the other composers are credited with their first and last names. Any reason for this in particular?
Interestingly enough the original quote from ref 7 actually had this inconsistency. Regardless, I've added the composer's full name, so  Done
    • Is the "Image Song CD" red link of any relevance to the article on Image song, and if so can this be replaced?
 Done
  • "Release" secion
    • "the film's box-office gross receipts in Japan was"; this doesn't read amazingly at present, currently the conjugation of to be is in the wrong person; I would suggest "totalled" here instead of "was" to make things simpler.
 Done
    • "In France, the film sold 429,822 tickets since 1999"; should use present perfect "has sold" here given the continuing timeframe
 Done
    • "worldwide since 2002."; full stop here yet sentence continues after the citation
 Done
    • "Due to his disappointment" sentence continues on to list both Miyazaki and Ghibli, so this should either be "their disappointment" or the sentence should be rewritten to make clear the disappointment lay with Miyazaki.
 Done
      • I would also split this sentence up since it's already quite long, potentially by shifting the cultural/linguistic changes part into its own sentence.
 Done
  •  Not done The sentence in question (starting at "The names remained the same...") still needs to be split; at 61 words it's way longer than the recommended for most style guides available.
I've split the sentence again.
    • One rogue instance where the studio is referred to as "Ghibli Studio" rather than "Studio Ghibli"
 Done
    • "Disney release the film on Blu-ray in Japan on 2012."; should be "released"
 Done
  • "Reception" section: "The 1996 movie guide "Seen That, Now What?"," is missing an "In" at the start, given the sentence then continues on with the rating and quote
 Done
  • Legacy section
    • "My Neighbor Totoro was considered as a milestone"; the "as" is redundant here
 Done
    • The second reference to satoyama in the second paragraph is missing italics as a Japanese phrase
 Done
    • Empire in the first paragraph should also be italicised as a publication
 Done
  • "Media"
    • "English-anguage" in second sentence of "Books" section
 Done
    • "Stage adaption" section written in future tense but according to content in this section the play had already completed its full run in January.
 Done
  • There's not amazing consistency across the article with regards to capitalised first letters in quoted phrases; some have the first letter in lower case when they are embedded within the sentence, while others retain the first letter as a capital. This is particularly noticeable within the "Reception" section.
To do the rest tomorrow. Thanks.
  • An additional note following the creation of the new 35th anniversary section; I don't believe an entire section is required for two sentences, unless you believe there are additional points that can be added. If not, I believe this should be merged into the box office section.
I've merged it back into the English dubs subsection, as the added sentence stated it came back to theaters in both Japanese language with English subtitle and English dub. I considered adding it to the box office subsection but releases mentioned at that subsection typically had information on box office grossed; in contrast, there doesn't appear to be info on the box office for the 35th anniversary edition. However, please ping me if you disagree. Thanks.
  • Thanks, I'm happy enough that the English dubs section is probably the most suitable area for this addition. I did a bit of a rewrite on this new paragraph, however there are still some outstanding points: more info is needed on where exactly the re-release happened (was it just in the US or was it in other countries?); which dub exactly was the film released in (I assume the Disney one but this also needs clarification); also the scale of the re-release is important to gauge how relevant to the article its inclusion actually is per WP:WEIGHT. Additionally, how notable exactly is this Ghibli Fest that it should be included here as well? Some additional references to show its notability, and to cover the gaps listed above, are therefore welcome. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene* These follow up actions still need to be completed.
Upon my first search for refs I'm also unsure whether the Ghibli Fest is notable for inclusion. I'll have another look tomorrow and potentially remove the mention.@Sims2aholic8: I've added another ref, though if you still don't think it it is sufficiently notable for inclusion I can definitely remove this. VickKiang (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: Thanks, the additional reference does help. I'm still unsure about the notability because the other point around where exactly this re-release happened has yet to be addressed. If it was a local screening in only one part of the US for example then I don't think the notability would be high enough to warrant inclusion, however if it was a US-wide event then potentially it could be. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This ref from Anime News Network states that Deadline reported on Sunday that the 35th anniversary screenings of the My Neighbor Totoro film earned US$284,122 in 970 locations on its opening day in the United States on Saturday, which seems to suggest that it only happened in the US but in many locations, though the amount grossed doesn't seem to be extremely high. I've clarified the locations but I'd appreciate your opinion whether overall the re-release is notable enough for inclusion, Sims2aholic8. Thanks.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • The "Plot" section could use some work to make sure it is written from a more neutral, out-of-universe point-of-view as per MOS:PLOT. In my opinion references to, for example, "one rainy night" and "one day", venture more into creative writing than an encyclopaedic plot summary.
Nota bene* I understand that this has gone through some additional edits from other editors, however my original point still stands and requires action.
I've removed this again. There might be objections, in my edit summary I asked editors to discuss at talk should there be further disputes over the wording.
  • The "Characters" section reads a little too much as from an in-universe perspective; this requires a rewrite to ensure it is places within a real world perspective.
 Done- As this is solely cited to ref 5 which seems unreliable to me with no indication that it passes WP:RS, I've boldly removed this section entirely.
  • Although not explicitly part of the GA review, and I won't hold it against the article when it comes to my overall assessment, I would consider implementing MOS:REPEATLINK; particularly in the "Reception" section there are several instances where the same publication has been linked several times, sometimes within the same sentence.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No issues here
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • Reviewing sources against reliability guidance
    • 5/38/92/93: What makes this site a reliable source?
Nausicaa.net has some WP:USEBYOTHERS, e.g., 1, 2, and some coverage by Anime News Network (mostly interviews). However, overall USEBYOTHERS is limited. WP:USEBYOTHERS state that How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. I could not find many recent examples of USEBYOTHERS for this site which has no editorial policies, subject-matter-expertise, and is even self-described as a fan site. Indeed, even one of the USEBYOTHERS examples also acknowledge that this is a fan site despite being helpful. On the balance, I agree that this site is insufficiently reliable, so have removed the character section citing to ref 5 out of in-universe and non-RS sourcing concerns. Moreover, I couldn't find RS backing ref 92 and 93's claims up so have removed that as well. Will have a look if I can find other refs for ref 38's claim soon. Thanks.
    • 20/21: Where does the source data within Box Office Mojo come from? I know IMDb is not considered a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED, but I'm not sure how this relates to this related site.
@Sims2aholic8: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources lists it as potential sources, which is a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus, except where otherwise noted. However, I'm not sure whether the list is up-to-date.
  • Thanks, I'm happy enough with this response.
Removed.
  • Minor ref formatting tweaks, not a major concern for the GA review but more stuff I noticed that could potentially be address.
    • 5: Bare ref (just title and url)
 Not done- This is essentially moot as ref 5 has been removed, see above.
    • 42-46: These could either be merged into one ref since they now all redirect to the same page on BFI or changed to link directly to the relevant PDF file downloads
Nota bene* Appreciate the work to change these references; the 2020 ref however has I believe been missed and could therefore be changed to match the other years.
I've amended the ref's format.
    • 54: Contains archive date but no archive url included
    • There are a few instances of dead refs that have not been flagged as such (e.g. see 25, 26 and 66)
Nota bene* This still appears to be outstanding and needs corrected
 Done
2c. it contains no original research. * "for a total of $41,076,708" in "Box office" has no ref
@Sims2aholic8: The claim appears to be adding the pre-2005 box office stats and the post-2002 stats together. Simple calculations doesn't violate WP:NOR, though I'm unsure why pre-2005 and post-2002 stats are added together, as the box office between 2002 and 2005 would be duplicated. I can remove this phrase if you would like to. Thanks.
  • No citations provided for uncredited voice cast (as per MOS:FILMCAST)
Added for original Japanese and 2005 dub- Behind the Voice Actors isn't great but is reliable per its WP:RSP entry. Will find refs for the 1993 dub and address other suggestions tomorrow. VickKiang (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene* Ref for 1993 dub is still outstanding.
@Sims2aholic8: On another look this ref also provides most of the 1993 roles, excepting the uncredited roles (which of course won't be credited), as well as one or two minor roles. For some of the minor roles in the 1993 film, e.g., Lara Cody, the sole sources seem to be IMDb and Anime News Network, however, these are for database entries that seem to be contributed by users (per the note that You can contribute information to this page, but first you must login or register) instead of news artilces written by staff. These minor roles are also covered in a couple of other independent sources that appear to be databases. Overall, I'm not sure if these uncredited/minor roles has enough due weight in reliable independent secondary sources to be mentioned here, so I'd appreciate you also weigh in here.
  • No citations provided for the awards and nominations
Nota bene* Still outstanding here as well
@Sims2aholic8: I was able to find clearly reliable refs/official websites for all of the awards except the Saturn Awards and one of the Kinema Junpo Awards. I couldn't find refs of the former anywhere excepting from IMDb and a myriad of other non-RS databases (the official page has a very long list but it appears that only winners are listed, it is also confusing what exactly is the Best Genre Video Release, this award title doesn't actually appear on the official Saturn Awards page. Should I remove this and note on the talk page that if other editors find a source they can boldly readd it?
For the Kinema Junpos awards, there is a Japanese website called KINENOTE that backs up the claim. The website is owned by Kinema Junposha, who owns the magazine that gives out the awards, so it seems that this reference is acceptable to use for this mostly uncontroversial claim despite that it has some user-generated sections as well (see a summary of the website at the Ja wiki page. In this context it seems to be a reliable source as the award sections doesn't seem to be WP:USERGENERATED; I am thinking of removing the mention of the first award and adding the aforementioned ref for the second, but am interested in what you think of these. VickKiang (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the new ref you've added and your assessment of this Japanese source as generally reliable for the purposes of backing up the awards claim, so I would generally support its inclusion. I haven't seen the exact page that lists the information but I can take a scan once it's been added to the article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done- added the ref and removed the claim that the film was nominated for the Saturn award as it's a claim that could potentially be challenged per WP:V and I can neither find WP:RS nor WP:ABOUTSELF websites for this claim.
  • There are a couple of "citations needed" tags in the "English dubs" section that require attention.
Nota bene* This has not been corrected
I think the cn tags have been corrected, but if there are any other uncited claims violating the minimum citation requirement and WP:OR requirements for GA criteria 2b & 2c please detail them here and ping me. Thanks.
  • "Page needed" tag in the "Home media" section
  • Spot check of sources against content
    • 13 and 15: All good here
    • 20: Source doesn't cover gross for China
The newer live version of the source does cover the gross for China, which I've added.
    • 23: All good here
    • 25: I believe this violates WP:SELFPUB since it's written by the subject of the statement itself; it also doesn't cover the info in the previous sentence (around the theatrical and VHS release of the first dub).
Nota bene* This issue is still present and a new ref is required
I've added a ref from IGN which stated that This DVD for 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment uses the 1993 theatrical release distributed by the 50th Street Films unit of Troma Entertainment, though it should be noted that Troma had nothing to do with the DVD production itself. It doesn't back the part about the VHS, so I can remove that if you would like to.
@VickKiang: If you cannot find a ref to cover the VHS release then this will need to be removed per WP:OR. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response and.I will strike my reply here. It seems that I was originally posting a verbose reply that I ended up rewriting entirely. However, I then lost my train of thought and wrote this instead. I will write a more detailed reply soon, thanks and apologies for the possible confusion.
@Sims2aholic8: Overall, my IGN point still stands but following a look at the current article text and other referencing, I'm slightly confused with regards to the VHS dates. For example, the lede of this article suggests that This dub was released in 1993 to United States theaters, and the following year on VHS, then ... and Fox Video later released it on VHS, then In 1993, Fox Video licensed the film from Studio Ghibli and released the Streamline Pictures dub of My Neighbor Totoro on VHS and LaserDisc in the US. Essentially, the current article appears to state that there are multiple releases (which aren't backed up by adequate referencing) or is contradictory in the date it provides.
My search of sources found some contradicting examples as well. E.g., part of this book's excerpt states that My Neighbor Totoro. Dir. Hayao Miyazaki. 1993. Fox Video, 1994. VHS. "My Neighbor Totoro.” My Neighbor Totoro. Dir. Hayao Miyazaki. Walt Disney, 2006, backing up that there was a VHS release in 1994. Moreover, the other 1993 date is backed up by this presumably unreliable source (Nausicaa.net) discussed earlier, which mentions that Fox Home Video (not the ordinary Fox Video) released it in 1993 (however, it's questionable whether this fact, only covered in non-RS and databases, is noteworthy enough for a mention that doesn't criteria 3b, which states that the article doesn't go into unnecessary detail. In contrast, other sources state that Totoro is also released in 1996 by 20th Anniversary Fox on the VHS (some other sources also report an unspecified date).
The Wikipedia article states that, for 20th Century Studios, In the 1980s, 20th Century Fox – through a joint venture with CBS called CBS/Fox Video – had distributed certain UA films on video; thus UA has come full circle by switching to 20th Century Fox for video distribution. Therefore, it appears to be that there are multiple releases by Fox Video and related to Fox. Overall this is a bit confusing- which of these do you think should be included in the article (I think the 1993 one should be excluded), and how long should the mentions be to ensure due weight (I'm thinking fairly brief mentions for each) and both 3a and 3b criteria of GAs being not violated? Thanks and sorry for the verbosity. VickKiang (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: Thanks for your work in researching this. Looking at what you've found, it all seems quite contradictory. Personally if there's no clear-cut answer to when a VHS release(s) was made or by which company, I would remove this content entirely. I don't believe that not including a VHS release would violate 3a, the main aspects of the article are still covered in sufficient detail, and it's better in my view to not cover something if there is no clear-cut answer backed up by reliable references than to try and shoe-horn something in that could cause confusion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do later today or tomorrow. VickKiang (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)I've boldly removed the mention in the lede and one mention of an unsourced date in the body a few days ago. Currently there seems to be no objections (yet?), as such I'll be removing the other mention with regards to the Fox VHS release tomorrow; thanks.VickKiang (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Removed. VickKiang (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 26: All good here
    • 30: All good here
    • 37/38: While the individual facts here are supported by the refs, there is a WP:SYNTH issue here as the total monetary value of sales in Japan is not covered by either ref.
      • There's a similar SYNTH issue with refs 39/40
Nota bene* These SYNTH issues are still present (related to how info on home media sales and their monetary value is presented)
I've removed one of the WP:SYNTH issues and I'll do the other soon. VickKiang (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For ref 39/40, even though that simple calculations aren't WP:OR, which some editors might presume as. Nevertheless, given that the policy also states that Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies, and that you've challenged this claim as SYNTH, I've therefore removed this.
    • 45: All good here
    • 62: All good here
    • 66: All good here
    • 71: Covers the content of the statement, however there is nothing within the rest of the article which mentions the relevance of the straw hat to the movie (I only get the reference myself because I watched the movie recently)
The source doesn't explicitly state that Totoro is significant nor does it support the relevance of Totoro towards the Straw Hat Cafe, and overall seems a fairly minor point to the opening reception paragraph, so I've removed this sentence and ref for now.
    • 76: All good here
    • 93: All good from a content perspective
    • 98: All good here
    • WP:AGF for offline and non-English sources
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No instances of copyvio or plagiarism detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Happy that the main aspects of the subject have been covered broadly.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • The opening quote from Miyazaki in the "Production" section could do with additional context to place the quote within the wider subject. Right now it seems a bit tangential to me, as if the quote is more there just to have it so to speak.
I've removed the quote, which does seem somewhat out-of-place. Thanks.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Happy that this point is covered adequately.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No notes.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. No notes.
7. Overall assessment. Assessment now complete. Several areas remain outstanding against the GA criteria as outlined above, particularly around prose, sourcing and OR. Placing this review on hold to allow the nominator time to enact any changes I have suggested above. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This GA review has now been ongoing for a month, and still a number of the issues I presented have not been addressed. I will give this another week to be resolved, otherwise I will close the review as a fail. Pinging VickKiang for awareness. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: I think I've replied to all of the concerns marked with n.b. If you have any outstanding verfiability, no OR, or prose concerns relevant to 1a and 1b following my changes please bring these up as well.
Additionally, I'm unsure whether I accidentally messed up the template of this but somehow for me the GA review now displays 2c as merely "pending" in bold instead of displaying the suggestions. Could you have a look at this as well? Thanks for your time and patience. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to work on this article. I am completing one final review of the whole article and will list any additional points which need to be addressed below.

  • Within the lead, Jerry Beck is listed as co-producer of the original English dub but he's not listed anywhere else in the article.
Removed.
  • The Australian and UK releases of the second dub in the lead are also not listed anywhere else in the article.
Moved the Australian release, which doesn't seem due weight to be ledeworthy, to the body, will try to find a ref for the UK claim and then move that to the body as well soon. VickKiang (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC), for the UK one I could not find RS backing up this so have removed for the time being. VickKiang (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discrepancy between the total worldwide box office gross in the lead ($41m) and in the article ($30.4m)
The discrepancy is because the $30.4 million figure is only for box office since 2002. I've added another ref from SCMP here, a 2021 article which notes the box reports to be $41 million, which is the same as the lead stat. VickKiang (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Home video sales also has a discrepancy, with $277m in lead vs. $202m for VHS and DVD in Japan and $64.5m in US
I couldn't find a ref, as such, I've removed the stat in the lede and reworded so the line now reads My Neighbor Totoro has grossed over $41 million worldwide at the box office as of September 2019; the film also grossed significantly more from home video sales and merchandise. Is this acceptable? VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The $1.142 billion for merchandise is not supported anywhere in the article, with only various yen values for certain years in the merchandise section
Removed.
  • There's a reference to cameo appearances in video games, however nothing in present in the article
I've also removed the statement that Totoro had cameos in video games. I couldn't find anything in the paragraph (Totoro has made cameo appearances in many Studio Ghibli films, including Pom Poko, Kiki's Delivery Service, and Whisper of the Heart. The character has also appeared in other anime series and films, including one episode of the Gainax television series His and Her Circumstances. Miyazaki uses Totoro as a part of his logo for Studio Ghibli. Totoro also makes a cameo appearance in the Pixar film Toy Story 3 (2010) but was not included in Toy Story 4 due to licensing problems. Toy Story 3's art director Daisuke Tsutsumi is married to Miyazaki's niece, who inspired the character Mei in My Neighbor Totoro) that supports it, but either way it seems quite minor and not of due weight for lede inclusion. VickKiang (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight update for Rotten Tomatoes' aggregate now based on 57 reviews
 Done
  • No references in the Legacy for Totoro's cameo appearances in other Ghibli films or in other media
I've removed the mentions of the Ghibli cameos, which seem to be minor & unsourced trivia. Will have a look at whether the other cameo mentions are trivial soon. VickKiang (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Apologies for my slow responses due to an illness. I've removed another piece of trivia for Totoro being included in His and Her Circumstances, so this should be it.VickKiang (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tweaked the lead wording slightly, see my edit summary here. VickKiang (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stage adaption section could also do with an update to include mention of the play's second season from November 2023
Added (though I just copied from My Neighbor Totoro (play) because I'm lazy...) VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every other section of the article is now fully compliant with the GA criteria. Once these points have been addressed I will be happy to promote this article to GA. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, just a note that I might be slow in replying to other suggestions (I'll try to reply to two within 48 hours). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've also removed the statement that Totoro had cameos in video games. I couldn't find anything in the paragraph (Totoro has made cameo appearances in many Studio Ghibli films, including Pom Poko, Kiki's Delivery Service, and Whisper of the Heart. The character has also appeared in other anime series and films, including one episode of the Gainax television series His and Her Circumstances. Miyazaki uses Totoro as a part of his logo for Studio Ghibli. Totoro also makes a cameo appearance in the Pixar film Toy Story 3 (2010) but was not included in Toy Story 4 due to licensing problems. Toy Story 3's art director Daisuke Tsutsumi is married to Miyazaki's niece, who inspired the character Mei in My Neighbor Totoro) that supports it, but either way it seems quite minor and not of due weight for lede inclusion. VickKiang (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sims2aholic8: I think I've replied to all of your final comments. As you know I've been taking an extended semi-wikibreak because of RL, so sorry for the slow pace. VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: Thank you for progressing with this, I'm happy with all the changes that have been made. There is however a "failed verification" tag on the first sentence of the "English dubs" section which has since been added and which will need to be fixed before I can pass this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sims2aholic8: Thanks for your quick reply; I've replaced that ref with Kotaku, which is RS per WP:VG/RS for video games at least. It should IMO be mostly similar for films, the entry do advice caution for blog or geek like articles, but this seems fine and is used for a IMO not overly contentious routine date claim. Also, it states in 1989, just a year after its original debut, Totoro was adapted for English audiences by Streamline Pictures. The movie was exclusive to transatlantic passengers flying with Japan Airlines instead of in 1988, so I've changed the date here as well. VickKiang (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: Thanks for the quick fix there. I'm happy that the new source provided is reliable for this purpose, and I'm now happy that all aspects of the GA review have been met and that all issues above have been resolved. With this I am very pleased to promote this article to GA. Great work all around and thank you for being as responsive as possible under the circumstances. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One Rainy Night"/"One Rainy Evening" phrase

@Sims2aholic8:, thanks for your detailed review, @TheBlinkster:, I thank you for correcting the incorrect tense here, which used to be present continuous but I accidentally changed it into past simple, inconsistent with the rest of the plot section.

However, TheBlinkster, you've restored the line "One rainy evening". This is indeed long-standing text but I've removed as in the article's GAN review it was said that The "Plot" section could use some work to make sure it is written from a more neutral, out-of-universe point-of-view as per MOS:PLOT. In my opinion references to, for example, "one rainy night" and "one day", venture more into creative writing than an encyclopaedic plot summary by Sims2aholic8. TheBlinkster, I'd be interested if you have an opinion about the phrase (as in whether it builds upon additional context). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland

It has some striking similarities with Alice in Wonderland; I'm not sure if/where to include it, but some sources that may help: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: This information is certainly interesting, and I think a sentence mentioning it could be fit somewhere in the Reception section, though I'm not sure exactly where. Links 4 and 5 seem like WP:SELFPUB, by the way, so I might not include them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About "cult following"

Hey Poirot09, I don't think the phrase "cult following" should be used in the lead at the moment, as the phrase is never used later in the article. I also could not find a source that uses this specific phrase, which is why I let DBeyer2003's edit stand. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the article, I think the phrase should be outright removed. There is no substantial information regarding the fandom, only about Totoro's impact as a character, which is already covered in the lead. Poirot09 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes sense. Lacking any significant discussion in the body, there's no reason for it to remain in the lead. I'll go ahead and remove it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that one of the sources in the legacy section (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i3338808b4eeae51f3a3a1b041eee3d7c/) has been tagged as dead since last year, is there a way we could deal with this? Blue Jay (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Neighbor_Totoro