Talk:Grave of the Fireflies

— Assignment last updated by Dslaym (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary format
Hello. While I agree with most of the earlier changes to the plot summary by, I thought a discussion would be useful for other editors to give their thoughts on the matter. Since the plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, we should avoid minute like technical details (like breaking the fourth wall, using "the film" in a plot summary, etc.) or scene-by-scene breakdowns per the relevant guidelines at Manual of Style/Film. Also, according to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film, the use of an in medias res scene (in this case, it's Seita's death from starvation) can be placed elsewhere in the article without breaking for it. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely opposed to using "the film" in a plot summary if it seems beneficial (as in the example at WP:PLOTSUM) but I agree it's not necessary here. I also agree with your changes to the in media res scene; it's not entirely necessary for the understanding of the plot, so it can just be placed chronologically. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that phrases like "in the film" are, in fact, very important to keep in line with MOS:INUNIVERSE. I would argue that the plot-section feels too in-universe currently, though it's a tight plot synopsis otherwise. Note that the example given in PLOTSUM begins "Little Red Riding Hood is the story of ...", for comparison. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of seeing 's point on this; for example, when there are 'flashbacks' in a film, sometimes its best to simply use the word 'flashback' to describe the Plot, rather than some less direct reconstruction of the plot narrative of the film. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent edit by SJones removed the introductory material of the film from the start of the plot section. The introductory material of the film, which I previously added, should be restored to appear at the beginning of the plot section. The edit of SJones on the film for Fireflies does not appear to be the same as what other editors at Wikipedia are doing for films which present their scenes out of chronological sequence. For example the peer reviewed article for Citizen Kane starts with his deathbed scene at the start of the film and in the Plot section of the article, before it then goes back in time to tell Kane's biography. It looks like the same thing in the Fireflies film. Could you change or adjust your last edits there to reflect Wikipedia guidelines for presenting Plots which are shown with their scenes out of chronological sequence? The introduction of Fireflies should appear at the start of the plot section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that phrases like "in the film" are, in fact, very important to keep in line with MOS:INUNIVERSE.
 * I can't think of a single case where phrases like that are necessary, and I've written hundreds of plot summaries on Wikipedia. It's a plot summary, so people know it's in the film. Saying stuff like "In the film", "The film ends with," "In the next scene" etc never adds clarity or information. Popcornfud (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, according to the relevant how-to guide at WP:PLOTSUMNOT: Not only should a plot summary avoid a scene-by-scene recap, but there's also no reason that a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order in which they appear (though it is often useful). Given that, the in medias res sequence could be placed in chronological order. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another one, per MOS:PLOT (a guideline): Summaries written in a real-world perspective do not need to stay true to the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 05:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That still leaves open the question of whether Fireflies or Citizen Kane are taking the correct approach in presenting a plot which basically starts with the death of the main characters at the start and then goes back to describe their lives. Both Fireflies and Citizen Kane use this plot device, though Citizen Kane keeps the description of the death at the top of the Wikipedia plot section, whereas User:Sjones is deleting the death scene from the start of the plot section. Which one is correct, the peer reviewed Wikipedia article for Citizen Kane or Sjones's version of Fireflies? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither is more "correct"—they're both allowed to present information differently, as is made very clear in the two quotes immediately above (specifically, "there's ... no reason that a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order in which they appear (Fireflies) (though it is often useful)" (Kane)) . Citizen Kane's non-linear narrative seems to be an important storytelling technique that is discussed in the article; the same cannot be said about the opening of Grave of the Fireflies, in my opinion. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point seems reasonable from one viewpoint, but the viewpoint of the directors and animators of Fireflies was to think that the death scene was significant and to put it at the very start of the film. It seems like respecting the wishes and preferences of the directors and animators of Fireflies should normally be followed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The goal isn't to "[respect] the wishes and preferences" of the creators, it's to present the information in the most logical way. Whether or not that involves describing the scenes chronologically is a matter of opinion, but it should never be done to simply please the creators; that basically defeats the purpose of that quote. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Rhain here. We should just summarise the plot in whichever format suits our goals best — that is, to provide a concise, plain summary — not which best matches our assumptions about what the filmmakers might prefer. Popcornfud (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think MOS:INUNIVERSE is pretty clear on this: "Articles about fiction ... should use the real world as their primary frame of reference"; "Important aspects ... Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative"; Starting the plot section with the phrase "In 1945, the Yokokawa's house is destroyed ..." can be confusing, as it is unclear whether "the Yokokawa's house" refers to a real household (like Kobe being a real location in the same sentence). I don't mind it too much, though, as it isn't too unclear. The "Plot summaries of individual works" section does allow this usage within a "Plot" or "Synopsis" section (btw, the MOS there explicitly talks about Citizen Kane's in media res, which might be of use in the discussion above). ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 18:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to specify which elements or locations in a plot summary are fictitious. Popcornfud (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m also not sure it’s necessary. The plot section for the featured article Casablanca (film) doesn’t explicitly describe Rick Blaine’s nightclub as fictional due to the city Casablanca being real. Also the plot section for the good article Dracula doesn’t say fictional castle even thought the mountain range it was situated in was real. Granted this is a limited sample but it appears that plot sections don’t explicitly describe fictions locations in real life locations as fictitious.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Its to the point that Maplestrip is also finding Citizen Kane used as an example in MOS. I'll also add another example at this time of Al Pacino in The Irishman where the film starts with Robert DeNiro on his deathbed before the film starts to tell his story. Both of these serve as examples that the introduction to a film, as it was filmed, should start the plot section; this suggests the same for Fireflies which is currently not done. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have another angle to view this issue from: do we have a reliable source that describes or analyzes the in media res/flashback aspect of the first scene of the movie in detail? If so, it might be appropriate to make it clear in the synopsis that it's the start of the film. Right now, it really doesn't matter either way, as the text of our article doesn't talk about this scene anyway. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting on this edit. If the article for Fireflies is to move forward from its "C"-level status, then the plot section and the other sections need to be improved in order for the article to move forward. Both Citizen Kane and The Irishman are peer reviewed articles and both of them include the preface to the film at the start of the plot section. The current version of the Fireflies plot section ignores the preface and does not list it at the start of the plot section. Support for anyone who can add the preface of this film into the start of the plot section of Fireflies. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ernest, I'm sorry, but I'm not actually saying this here. In Citizen Kane, we have a reliable source talking about how "no film was as immersed in [the technique of flashback] as Citizen Kane." We have a similar phrase in the "Interpretation" section of The Irishman. We don't have a citation like that for Grave of the Fireflies, so we have no reason to mention it in the plot section either. If the "Themes and analysis" section of this article is expanded to talk about the structure of the film, then we would have more of a reason to mention it in the plot section. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Its fair for you to point that out and I'll spend some time getting the reliable sources together to expand the Analysis section a little. Most of the reliable sources I've found so far are stressing that the film's theme is determined by the start of the film described as two ghosts appearing at the beginning of the film to begin a spiritual journey across Japan which then has a flashback to where the last years of their material lives are presented in this film. The current analysis section in the article starts with material which the director did not agree with, which seems like the wrong place to start an analysis section for this article. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds very good! Such an expansion of the Analysis section would be great, I think. The anti-war and isolation aspect currently in the article is very good too, of course, but maybe not the best start of the section if you have a good citation for the two ghosts. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Its now added it based on the new De Wit book about the film from BFI. Is more needed in the Analysis section in order to add the preface to the plot summary section? The material is not found in the book version and is found only in the film version as a 4 minute long preface which starts the film. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice addition. I wonder if De Wit's book can be used for other aspects as well; might serve well as a major source. I think there's more reason to bring the in media res sequence to the front of the plot section now, but I'd be interested in what the other people in this conversation think. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That new book from BFI is worth looking at if you might have a copy of it at your local public library; its fairly well-written and could likely be read by most readers over a single week-end. Regarding the edit to the plot section to include the "two ghosts" version as part of the prologue at the start, then I'm wondering it you could look at enhancing my previous version of it and placing it into the Plot section and I'll try to support you. My original version if you could look at enhancing it is here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm thinking of a rewrite to the two ghosts paragraph to remove any potential redundancy and not break the fourth wall, I've also asked an uninvolved editor with experience in editing film articles,, for his take on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I guess I am not sure where the idea of not breaking the fourth wall comes from. WP:WAF says, "Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as flashbacks (Citizen Kane) or In medias res (The Usual Suspects) presentation, or other narrative framing devices such as breaking the fourth wall (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or inclusion of self-referential humor (Monty Python and the Holy Grail), may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer." So it is a valid option to use out-of-universe language. As for whether or not to open the plot summary that way, that seems to be an editorial decision. Since Wikipedia follows reliable sources in terms of content, it can also follow them in terms of organization. It's not clear to me, but does the BFI book have a plot summary that opens about the ghosts? Are there other reliable sources that summarize the plot that we can follow? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I find that breaking the fourth wall almost always makes the summaries more complicated and less clear, rather than the other way round. It's usually not the simplest solution.
 * The first sentence of the plot summary as it stands is a perfect example of this: "The ghosts of two children [...] are portrayed as wandering through Japan following the end of World War Two." It's simpler to just write: "The ghosts of two children [...] wander through Japan following the end of World War Two."
 * Really, I don't think this opening thing needs to be part of the summary at all. Just keep it simple and stick to the main plot elements. Popcornfud (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the plot summary should be in universe. It's describing what happens in the film. There's no need to use "in the film" or similar phrasing as it's in the plot summary section and is therefore obviously in the film. WP:INUNIVERSE mainly applies to everything outside of the plot summary. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Section break
So, how about we open with the following? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit has 3-4 editors in agreement for adding. You appear to have left editing the page for over 1-2 weeks and you are reverting an edit made by 3-4 editors in agreement. You can ping the 3-4 editors if needed prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was busy with other things, actually. Also, just because another film article's plot summary does something differently doesn't give us cause to do so here, since that would fall under WP:OSE. While I've invited, , , and some other uninvolved editors such as ,  and  for their thoughts on the matter, I agree with Popcornfud and Rhain's earlier positions regarding the opening sentence in the summary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up, pings won't work unless you sign within the same edit per WP:MENTION. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to read here for what this seems to be, but regarding the opening, I prefer the in-universe version to the "are portrayed wandering" version. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. While I'm still waiting for additional thoughts on the plot summary, I also agree with Popcornfud that we should keep it simple and that breaking the fourth wall can make summaries unclear. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking WP:FILMPLOT, along with WP:INUNIVERSE and the above comments into consideration, we can open the plot summary with one of the following:
 * "In 1945, teenager Seita Yokokawa lives in Kobe with his younger sister Setsuko and his mother. On June 5, a group of American Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers launch an air raid on Kobe, destroying most of the city."
 * "Seita Yokokawa is a teenager living with his younger sister Setsuko and his mother in Kobe, Japan. On June 5, 1945, a group of American Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers launch an air raid, destroying much of the city. Though Seita and Setsuko escape the raid, their mother is severely injured and later dies."
 * "In June 1945, teenager Seita Yokokawa, who is living in Kobe with his younger sister Setsuko and his mother, prepares to escape his home when a group of American Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers launch an air raid."
 * "On September 21, 1945, teenager Seita Yokokawa dies from starvation at the Kobe-Sannomiya Station in Kobe. Later, a janitor picks up a candy tin containing his sister Setsuko's ashes and disposes of them. Reunited as spirits, Seita and Setsuko board a ghostly train and recount how they survived the Bombing of Kobe in World War II."
 * "At the Kobe-Sannomiya Station on September 21, 1945, teenager Seita Yokokawa dies of starvation. A janitor picks up a candy tin containing his sister Setsuko's ashes and disposes of them. Reunited as spirits, Seita and Setsuko board a ghostly train and recount how they survived the Bombing of Kobe in World War II."
 * "In September 1945, teenager Seita Yokokawa dies of starvation at the Kobe-Sannomiya Station. After a janitor picks up a candy tin containing his sister Setsuko's ashes and disposes of them, Setsuko's spirit reunites with Seita's. Boarding a ghostly train, the two recount how they survived the Bombing of Kobe in World War II."
 * Of course, I'm always open to other suggestions. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Led to this discussion from a notice dropped on my talk page. I haven't seen the film, but here are some general thoughts. Plot summaries should maintain a real-world perspective as a frame of reference per our guidelines, which may combine both in-universe and out-of-universe descriptions. Granted, a majority of a summary's text will appear to be in-universe when properly written in present tense (per WP:PLOTTENSE), but that is purely coincidental. Out-of-universe descriptions can be used as needed and can even be captured in an explanatory footnote when space is limited. The plot summary at BvS is a good example of how to incorporate out-of-universe text in both running text and footnotes, IMO. Remember, the goal isn't to reproduce the experience of watching the film. The objective is to provide a high-level overview that even readers who are not familiar with the source material would understand.With that said, if the summary here is going to start out with, "The ghosts of two children...", then it would probably make sense to specify which characters (i.e. the children's names) these ghosts represent in that opening paragraph as well, assuming they represent characters introduced later in the summary. Why wait? Otherwise, it's a confusing introduction that seems out of place, at least to someone like me that hasn't seen the film. Also "depict the remains and remnants of the memory of their orphaned lives after losing their parents" has too many prepositions that grate harshly against the ears! I suggest simplifying that! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

GA/FA?
While I've already asked around for additional thoughts on the plot summary's formatting, I have been thinking about bringing the article to GA or FA status at some point, using Back to the Future, Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) or Jaws (film) (both FAs) as a model. While it's in decent shape, the article might need some work if we want to bring it to either GA or FA status (including the lead section, which we can expand to at least three or four paragraphs). Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A three paragraph lede would be nice. I feel like the release and reception sections might use a copyedit? GA is not too high a bar for this article as it stands, if some of the missing citations can be fixed up. To make it a really beautiful article, I think it would be great if new information from new sources could be added. The music section is short, for example, and the "Derivative works" section might be transformed into a "Legacy" section if the sources are there. Best of luck for sure! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had hoped to bring the article up to GA/FA status 10 years ago, but I was busy with other things at that time. Still, there's no rush. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Rhetorical Practices from the Ancient World to Enlightenment
— Assignment last updated by Jenfurg (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Plot section, revisited
Hello. I would like to discuss the recent edits made to the plot section by as opposed to  edit warring. WP:FILMPLOT states "Events do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the events to improve understanding of the plot."

For now, I've restored the WP:STATUSQUO on the article and added a hidden note about the film's timeline alternating between the present and through flashbacks. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the plot is presented in a non-linear manner in the film, should that be mentioned in the opening of the plot section? 216.30.147.90 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps in the lead section? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep the version of the plot which presents the events in rough chronological order, as the film intentionally breaks the order for dramatic effect. This makes for good filmmaking, but not good encyclopedic writing. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 16:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)