Talk:Late Spring

Suggestions
All right. After a notification on my talk page, I propose we should make a few suggestions to the talk page to comply with WP:MOSFILM and relevant guidelines. Here are a few suggestions:


 * Lead section - needs to be three-four paragraphs.
 * Plot section - may need to be between 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT
 * Production section - needs to be created and include principal photography dates as well as a music section.
 * Cast section - may need to include descriptions of the characters and use the "actor as character" format for cast members.
 * Reception - may need to be merged into a consolidated section with applicable critical reception and box office subsections, as well as home media.
 * Miscellaneous - A theatrical poster may be added into the infobox as well.

Hope these help. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response
I have tightened the Lead section, changing it from four paragraphs to three.

The Plot section is almost exactly 600 words, well within the recommended 400-700 word range.

I cannot determine from my sources the actual dates of production, just the release date. If this film corresponds to traditional Japanese practice at the time, it was probably filmed just a few months or even weeks before its September 1949 release. As to the music, I intend to add a very short section about it, though there is not much to say. The models you seem to have in mind when you request all this information are recent films in which many production details are routinely publicized, and music scores frequently released as soundtrack albums. This is generally not the case for films of the era of Late Spring, particularly non-US films.

Descriptions of the characters are not at all necessary, as the Plot section summarizes the characters and their relationships quite well, and additional information on major and minor characters (e.g., their relationship to tradition) is also provided later in the article.

I have consolidated the Reception subsections within a "Reception and legacy" section. But "Home media" remains a separate section as it is just home video release information and has nothing to do with the film's critical reception and/or influence. I don't have any box office information for either the film's Japanese or US releases. Again, widely publicizing such box office receipts is a common characteristic of contemporary movies, not those of the late 1940s.

I think the screenshot I have chosen for the infobox conveys the charm of both the film and the leading lady, whereas the poster which was in the infobox previously did not.

I intend to request a Peer Review of the article. Thanks.

Dylanexpert (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is there an Ozu bio?
This has a rather long biography of the director in the article considering it is about a film. Why is it necessary to duplicate the Ozu article? Also, it seems a bit ignorant since Yasujiro Ozu was in the Japanese military during WWII. It is not too surprising he didn't make many films during this period. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the fact that about a dozen projects have made me too busy to give sufficient time to the article and to your comments. Let me make several points in response. First, your complaint is contradictory: you are simultaneously saying that there is too much biography in the article and not enough. Second, my biographical material in this article is not a copy of the Yasujiro Ozu article (which I did not edit): it is all based on my own research, not a rehash of somebody else's research. Third, the biographical material was, in my view, completely necessary to establish the situation in the Japanese film industry and the shomingeki genre and Ozu's place within the industry. (Note that I included almost no personal biographical material on Ozu, just his professional experience, and nothing after 1949, when Late Spring was released.) Finally, as to your mention of the absence of any reference to Ozu's military service, I deliberately deleted my references to it. If you check previous versions of the article, I did include a long footnote describing it in detail. However, I deleted all that because I thought that that level of biographical detail was too much for the reader and couldn't be justified. It should be obvious from the range and depth of the literature referenced in the article that I know Ozu's life story inside and out. So to call my deliberate omission "ignorance" is a bit rude! Dylanexpert (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "shomingeki", please see my comments on the talk page of the shomingeki article. I've reverted out the changes. Regarding the bio, my own preference is not to reduplicate contents. I don't think that saying it seems ignorant necessarily refers to the person who wrote it being ignorant but simply that the way it is phrased is not good. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Should not link to "creative reworkings" and similar fan material
From External links:

Links normally to be avoided...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

I apologize for calling these "garbage links" and this was unqualified rudeness on my part, however, "Creative reworkings of the film" are fan material, and I believe I am on solid ground saying they are not suitable links for Wikipedia. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, a VERY fine article
In my humble opinion: If this were more thesis driven, it could easily appear as an academic article. A LOT of work went clearly into writing this. I find it very extensive in summarizing the various discussions about the film, very well structured, extremely useful (e.g. on Japanese cultural background). If I had a say about it I would definitely rank it as a very evolved piece. 178.191.203.222 (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing edits about writing of the script
Dylanexpert, please justify removing all the edits I put in from the Kaneto Shindo book about the writing of the script. It's hardly irrelevant, since Kaneto Shindo was actually there when the script was being written. It's also part of a pattern of your reverting out edits by other people on this article, even when you were clearly told that the material wasn't suitable for Wikipedia (see the discussion above about the creative reworkings). It's starting to look like a bad case of WP:OWN. If you have some justification, then state it; otherwise, please restore the deleted material. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No response so edits restored by me. If there is a justification beyond WP:OWN for this, it would be good to point it out in the edit summary, or on the talk page, or something. The bogus "peer review" without notification on the talk page is doubly concerning. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes from peer review
Just having a look at the peer review, it is a bit interesting.

First why was there no notification of the peer review on the talk page? Again this is looking horribly like WP:OWN by Dylanexpert, who sent the article off for peer review without notifying on the article's talk page.

Secondly, about "shomingeki" and "home drama". The word "shomingeki" is a bit of pseudo-Japanese. In Japanese these films are commonly classified as "ホームドラマ" (Japanification of "home drama"). The word "shomingeki" seems to have some currency as used by Western film scholars. Unfortunately it's utterly ridiculous in the context of this film, since "shomin" means "common people" or "working-class people", and the people in this film are evidently not working class people. I can only guess that the correct and rather accurate name "home drama" is considered not sounding exotic enough for the film scholars. Anyway. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find a citation by a Japanese film scholar that properly defines the terms "shomingeki" and "home drama" to confirm your argument, I will revise the text accordingly. However, Tadao Sato, perhaps the most distinguished native critic of Japanese cinema, speaking of Ozu, says, "His forte was a detailed, sensitive portrayal of the daily lives of average or poor people [emphasis mine] -- what the American film critic Donald Richie calls shomin geki ('dramas about common people') and considers a unique Japanese film genre" (Currents in Japanese Cinema: Essays by Tadao Sato, Kodansha International, 1982, pp. 185-186). By inserting the word "average," Sato was conceding that the term shomingeki may refer not just to the lower classes, but to "ordinary" people in general. The father in the film is a professor, but not president of the college where he works. Neither is he a gangster or other lowlife. He is in the middle of Japanese society, not at its extremes of high or low, and Sato appears to accept this definition of shomingeki. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What an odd remark - Tadao Sato says that shomin-geki is a term used by Donald Richie, which is more or less the same thing which I'm saying. The important point is that shomingeki is not a word used by Japanese people. If you search google for "庶民劇" (in quotes) you won't find many uses. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first thing it says on WP:PR is "To add a nomination: Add subst:PR to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review." Surely Dylanexpert cannot have not noticed this? This is truly getting strange. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshu, although I may be wrong, I believe that I followed the instructions to the letter. If you look at the top of the page, it does say, "Late Spring received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article." Is any other notice necessary? Dylanexpert (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you didn't do it by the letter. You are supposed to notify before the peer review, not after it. The way you have done it is as if the peer review is for your own personal benefit and not for the benefit of anyone interested in this article. I understand that you may feel this article was neglected and you have contributed most of the content. OK, you have done a great job improving the article. You may even be right that the fried egg stuff adds nothing to the article. But not telling anyone there was a peer review and treating it like it was for your own benefit does raise concerns. The same with removing all the fried egg stuff, or putting back the youtube links. I am concerned about this, and also I am beginning to find it a bit stressful dealing with you. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I literally don't know what you are talking about. Of *course* I notified people before the peer review. How could the review be archived now otherwise? When people didn't immediately respond, I went to the talk pages of people with experience in peer reviews (and also, hopefully, Japanese film) to point out the peer review notice for this article and they were kind enough to give me their input. So I did all I could to notify other editors. As for the YouTube links, as you can see they are not there any more, as the person who objected convinced me to delete them. I commend you for your interest in Japanese Cinema and in Shindo in particular. But if you find it stressful to deal with me, surely you can find less stressful things to do. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dylanexpert, as I have explained, you are supposed to notify ON THIS TALK PAGE before the peer review. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a drive-by comment, but it looks like a Peer Review tag was added to the page on 18 May (see this edit). This was archived on 18 June (see this edit). The dates on the Peer Review report correspond. I'm not sure what else could have done: he appears to have acted entirely correctly. , I suggest that before you start throwing OWNership allegations around you should please try and remember WP:BENICE and WP:GOODFAITH. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your pointing out the edit. You are correct, and I owe Dylanexpert an apology. I missed this edit. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Requires Significant Cleanup
This article contains a major portion of information that seems unnecessary and should be removed from the article. Sections such as the historical backgrounds and production section contain detailed history of the production company that financed the film as well as detailed biographical information on each of the film's crew members. This seems extremely unnecessary as as the article is about the film and not the people associated with the film and, as such, should focus on the film rather than heavily detailed backgrounds on the people and production companies associated with the film. This information should instead be added to the articles on each of the persons and companies the information pertains to if not already included. When all the major biographical information is removed from the article, there is not a lot of detailed information on the film's production apart from details on the film's censorship. More production information should thus be added to the article. It is really surprising that this article somehow made B class status considering most of the information in it is covers more of the players than the actual film itself and should at least be reassessed regarding this. Hopefully these issues are fixed since this article has more than enough potential to become GA or maybe even FA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article to its former glory. Hats off to User:Dylanexpert for this breathtaking achievement. Please leave it alone. Eisfbnore  (会話) 15:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Eisfbnore, for your championing of my original version of the article. People viewing it now can see and judge for themselves that all assertions in the article were extensively sourced, and there was no original research. I appreciate your defense of my work. I hope that your warning to leave it alone will be heeded.
 * Dylanexpert (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)