Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga)/Archive 2

Huh
For such an epic and well-known work (in Japan anyway), this article seems a bit short. I mean, wasn't this the best-selling manga in Japanese history (maybe not anymore, but at the time of its publication)? I dunno. I love it, anyways.


 * In what way? If there's more to say then by all means add it. Just make sure it's verifiable and steer clear of fancruft. Wiki-Ed 08:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not actually sure if it was the highest-selling manga. Can anyone confirm this?

That cannot be even at the time. With just 7 volumes it can never compete with 30 or even 100+ volumes like those of Rumiko Takahashi, who became japan's richest woman for this. Perhaps the claim refers to the novels not manga which would make more sense. Some compiled data can be found here:,. Mightyname (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers in references and notes
Separated to its own section: On a related note. Does either of you -or other editors- have any ideas for solving the way to list page numbers consistently throughout the article's text body, notes and reference sections, so those can be unified in future edits as well. Especially for multiple citations from the same source there doesn't appear to be an easy way to cover them all individually in one style if the reference is used in the text body, notes and with reference/citations as well. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Extremepro, May I ask why you use use template rp? What other changes do you have in mind and why didn't you mention the change in citation format here in reply to the preceding message? I personally find those tiny page numbers confusing and have noted that even reviewers of GAN have expressed similar confusion. Without prior knowledge and research it can't be clear to a completely new wikipedia reader what the additional little red numbers mean.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Particularly because Helen McCarthy, for example, has written more than one book on the topic and since her publications are used interchangeably as references throughout the article it is, in my opinion, preferable to continue using the citation style I have been using. A note with Author (year), page number, followed by the reference link. i.e. McCarthy (1999) or McCarthy (2006).Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:rp was designed to removed clutter from the notes section of the articles. It shows the page numbers of the ref its attached to. I find it useful to use that when the same book is cited repeatedly. With regards to the McCarthy issue, clicking the reference will take the reader to the cited edition of McCarthy's work. I consider that to be a non-issue. Your thought? Note: The notes section was up to "ab" (28 times) before the usage of template:rp. Extremepro (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, I find the iterations of the rp template confusing as they appear in the text body of the article and the notes and I'm not the only one. Since it isn't at all clear from the text of the article that the additional little numbers refer to page numbers to someone doing GAN reviews how is an ordinary Wikipedia reader supposed to figure out that the additional numbers are page numbers? That was among the reasons why I didn't start using that template when I previously looked at options and before I unified the references throughout the article, it was one of the primary reasons why I asked for feedback prior to making changes in the format.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can revert all my edits back to non template:rp. But the main issue I have with the notes is that it takes up a lot of space. Can any of the notes be incorporated into the main text with inline citation? With the Watercolour Impressions ref - can only the English version of the text be cited (looking at notes "n" and "o") Extremepro (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert because I'm still hoping for more input - there must be a more elegant way to do this - to accommodate notes and inline page number citations. Whatever style is chosen must be applied consistently as a single style and must therefore work throughout all sections of the entire article. Unfortunately there are errors in the English translation of Watercolors. The French version of Watercolors has errors as well but that was the first version of the text used as a reference in the article. Published Watercolor translations do provide convenient access in different languages so I've opted not to use the Japanese original exclusively - since that would more or less either require user translations or reliance on the translated editions which would in turn require references to the published English and/or French translations for proper attribution. Incorporating text from the notes in the body of the article is certainly an option. That has my preference all along.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (fixed a typo in previous comment) also to add: I think you agree that it would be counterproductive to delete content to accommodate the limitations of a particular citation style/template. That seems to me a cart before the horse approach. So the objective is to organise things without the loss of information while at the same time creating the article with the least distracting inline citation style. The length of the notes or references section itself is something to consider but there are other articles with equally long or longer notes and/or citation sections. See for example the Featured article 'The adventures of TinTin' - where a citation template is used with its own limitations. Limitations which apply to this article. So far I've been arranging it this way because, imo, it leaves the cleanest text with the least obtrusive inline links. Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Do you, or anyone else reading along, have other suggestions? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tintin has a massive referencing section - doesn't help that it uses Harvard citation to invoke the references below. It might work well with few but often cited sources - certainly works well in academic writing. (It's also used in Franz Kafka - one of the most viewed FA's) School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew are both anime FA's and they sometimes use stacking of citations (multiple references in one ref) - would be good for the Watercolours ref. The best compromise is shown in 2012 phenomenon - use of Harvard citation for the frequently cited sources - whilst the sigularly cited sources are mixed in - so not all Harvard cite. Extremepro (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The notes are indeed a mess, and most of it can be fixed by putting general refs in bulletins while specific ones use ref citation. this really needs to get fixed.Lucia Black (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So ... let's settle on a single reference system that everyone can work with and can implement throughout the entire set of Nausicaa related articles. I'm not sure which system you are proposing now, can you elaborate and/or show example articles where the reference system you have in mind has been used? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to look through some of these, the problem is that most of these notes use more than one general source. it seems almost like original research (almost). but its hard to actually do anything about it. Theres just too many "notes" to clarify all the information, which seems not so necessary.Lucia Black (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All the notes have links to publications with specific page numbers - Most of the notes are used to source a preceding paragraph as a whole and place all the cited references together . Which citation/reference system are you proposing? I do not know what you mean when you write: "putting general refs in bulletins". Can you link to the template page for that system or otherwise provide links to articles where that system is in use? edited. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, in my December 22 reply to ExtremePro for example, and in the Hayao Miyazaki article, this was always a temporary solution. The purpose of some of the notes was not to let them stay like this permanently but that my preference is to incorporate a lot of the information they contain into the body of the text. I've not done so yet because I thought other editors could chew on the material for a bit and see what could be done with it. Other notes are indeed footnotes and can stay in the article as such. Many of the paragraphs in the main text aren't complete yet. There are more sources to take into consideration that need to find a way into the text itself as well- The roles of Hideo Ogata and Suzuki aren't adequately described yet in this article and some events on the timelines can still be made more specific - with more precise dating. That means adding more references. Which is among the reason why I've asked which reference system to use in November. The sources are given with page numbers and there has to be a better way to link those in line without cluttering the main body of the text. The nihongo template can be used to separate out the Japanese text to the bottom in a different set of notes - but that doesn't solve page numbers in references - which was the main reason I started this section. If you have an alternate method can you point out what it is more specifically? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Is something like this sandbox example what you have in mind when you mention "putting general refs in bulletins"? Sandbox set up with some sources for this article but with random text for demonstration of a reference / citation system only. (Edit to add, the citation system used is based on Template Sfn, (including bundled citations).Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm currently analysing the entire article and going to give specific issues soon.Lucia Black (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, can you please indicate briefly, perhaps with a link (Template?) and an example (Article?), what you had in mind when you wrote the following: " ... putting general refs in bulletins while specific ones use ref citation... " so other editors can analyse the citation system you are proposing? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

An example is citing primary sources such as a manga and then putting that in a bulleting but citing specific chapters and page numbers with the ref citation. But one thing at a time. Doing this and that has no "mean time".Lucia Black (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the notes don't help or clarify the article. Most of it is unnecessary.Lucia Black (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a bulletin(g)? Is there a template page for that? Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sfn or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp. If so, can you please link to that/those template's page(s)? I simply do not know what citation system you are proposing. Can you link to the template and perhaps an article in which it has been used? That way we can see - and implement (sandbox)- how page numbers are handled in that citation format you are proposing. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The same ref citation we been using for refs. the bullet list, looks like this: See?Lucia Black (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * I'm afraid I don't see, no. How does that address handling page numbers for specific citations with inline references -to one or more source(s)- cited throughout the text of an article? I linked two templates. I still can not figure out if your proposal makes use of either one of those two templates or if your suggestion is to use a different reference template for page number altogether. Can you please link to a page where the system you have in mind is demonstrated or used in an article? Extremepro gave three article examples but only the last one, 2012 phenomenon, really deals with specific page numbers in the text and references. Does that article look like what you suggest or do you have something else in mind? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Edit to add - the template I used for creating the example page in my sandbox, sfn with Harvard citation style does result in bullet lists- so is using that Sfn template what you have in mind? Example implementation is in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Verso.Sciolto/sandbox. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon is the same proposition i'm asking without separating "citation" from "references"Lucia Black (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably noticed that there are different citation styles in use on that 2012 phenomenon page. My comment is in regard to the citation style, Sfn template, for references using multiple specific pages numbers only. The references and citations on that page can only be split for sources that are cited only once or for which the citation appears on the same page in the same book or article. Separating citations from references would not address the multiple page numbers in the same source as is the case here from some of the references in this Nausicaa article. The citations and references in that article are intrinsically linked to each other where sources with different page numbers are concerned. They are not separable without loosing the ability to give specific but different page numbers within the same source at different points in an article. The template on the 2012 phenomenon page is the citation style implemented in the sandbox example above. It can be used for all the inline references and makes it possible to bundle references towards the end of each paragraph, to leave text less cluttered with links and to use a single citation style throughout the article. One disadvantage in that the bullet list is a "dead end" of sorts since the bullets aren't clickable to return to the citation and then back to the body of the text but navigating can be done with the browser back arrow. I'll alter the article to implement that style today.Verso.Sciolto (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've altered the article to implement that citation style of the 2012 phenomenon article in most references, by using the Sfnm iteration of the Sfn citation template with Harvard references (and removed the different rp template style citations in the process to unify references a bit more), made a few changes in the text to reduce notes. I've also divided most references into categories by adding a few section dividers under the Sources heading - the way the Adventures of Tin Tin article is organised.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . I've also put a version of the article without the divided sources on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Verso.Sciolto/sandbox. Please let me know if you prefer with or without the division into books, websites magazines etc. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Without specific division, we dont want to make the article too big and difficult to maneuver. Also remember to remove the ones that are just additional citations that doesn't clarify muchLucia Black (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, alphabetizing the notes doesn't help so much, try adding in a ref group name, such as the letter "n". An example of this is List of Blood+ light novels. Helps distinguish between references and notes.Lucia Black (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. When I wrote "Source list alphabetised" in the edit summary this was not a comment about footnotes but a comment related to organising the cited works in the source list per the Harvard reference system guidelines.
 * The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Efn with lower alpha letters used for the footnotes in this article is a commonly used template that is not functionally different from the footnotes used in the Blood list. The lower case alphabet links generated by this Efn Template do have the added benefit of taking up the least amount of space in the text body of any notes system and thereby reduce clutter and improve readability of the main text of the article. Now that the page number entries have been separated from the footnotes the distinction between the different inline links in the article is already made clear by using clickable letters for footnotes and clickable numbers for citations. Unless there is a compelling reason I've overlooked in my re-evaluation, I'm still in favour of retaining the Efn template with letters for the notes. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The efn has an option to say "note 1" "note 2" "note 3" etc. so that system an still work.Lucia Black (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that when I wrote the previous comment - but doing so only increases the length of the link for no functional benefit - as indicated above; "lower case alphabet links generated by this Efn Template do have the added benefit of taking up the least amount of space in the text body". It is for that reason that I adopted the version with letters for the footnotes and why I favour retaining the Efn template with letters for the notesVerso.Sciolto (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The functionality is making nots more distinguishable, which is why i thought the refgroup "n" would work even better. But i'll let it go for now, we still need to manage between what is actually footnote worthy.Lucia Black (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Review Dump
Extremepro (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books Hairston, Marc The reluctant messiah: Miyazaki Hayao's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind manga 173-186 - cited by Interdisciplinary Comics Studies
 * Drawing on Tradition: Manga, Anime, and Religion in Contemporary Japan by Jolyon Baraka Thomas - McWilliams (8 page article - I have full access to the journal)
 * AnimeFringe feature
 * Science Fiction Studies article - which is also a JSTOR journal article
 * review by Comics Bulletin
 * Mania 1 *Mania 3
 * Splash 1 Splash 2 Splash 4

Character links
The List of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind characters is -going to be- quite extensive (especially after more of the available sourced discussions of these characters have been added) There is a similar benefit as in the case of Hamlet and Tokyo Mew Mew to wiki linking each individual character's article or section/character listing directly from within this manga article. (And from the corresponding film article as well for that matter). Since such links take a reader straight to a specific part of an other article it makes navigating related articles easier. I propose reinstating the links and further modifying the articles based on the similar formats employed in Hamlet and Tokyo Mew Mew - the way wiki linking was adopted for this edit of the article.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We'll see what happens with the character list first before adding them back in, but i really dont think their as helpful. Tokyo Mew Mew can do without the links aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind on this one. After comparing Wikipedia articles with links for each character entry and articles without such links, and after reading articles about loss of information retention from hyperlinked texts, I must admit I actually find those linked words quite distracting when reading a text. Please disregard my earlier, now crossed out- comment in this section. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

High importance?
Gabriel Yuji, do you have any suggestions as to why this article could be rated high importance? My main evidence when I did it early was that it's tied to a movie with an article that's considered HI-standard. It is clear that the manga also influenced the Final Fantasy games, but I'm not sure where other concrete evidence can be found. Do you have any suggestions? PatTheMoron (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I own a book called 1001 Comic Books You Must Read Before You Die, which lists Nausicaä for its Tolkien-esque depiction of its world, artwork, themes, protagonist and its influence in starting up Studio Ghibli. PatTheMoron (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, no, I don't have any suggestion... I've requested input from WP:A&M for it. However, I'm not sure you can use the fact the film is important to say the manga is too. They are two separated works... As notability isn't inherited, I think importance isn't too. The Importance scale says for High: "Lasting impact decades after it was initially released". Is it true? The article has to show it... The influence on FF is clearly a good start but the 1001 book shows nothing to me... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to change it from mid. The film is clearly historically important for several reasons, but while the manga is celebrated, it isn't even close to achieving the importance of the film.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll inform you if any suitable evidence pops up. PatTheMoron (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy/high fantasy
The argument that Nausicaä does not have any fantasy elements is one that, to put it bluntly, holds no water. It’s true that the story is (or at least has key elements of) science fiction because it takes place in a futuristic world where different societies rely on (or used to rely on, given the story’s apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic setting) technologies that are unique from our own, but it would be wrong to say that because of this, the story can’t be a fantasy work. Nausicaä is a fantasy as well as a science fiction story, because while there is a tendency for the people of the periphery to use technology, the world they inhabit is also saturated with supernatural and fantastical phenomenon. The key examples of this are, of course, the Sea of Corruption and the creatures that inhabit it (in theory, much of the more advanced technology seen in Nausicaä is possible to develop, but the possibility of insects like the Ohmu is much less likely), Nausicaä’s spiritual and mental connection with the insects, and, of course, the Dorok priests, who could be compared to characters like Gandalf and Saruman from The Lord of the Rings. I regard the type of fantasy in the manga as ‘high fantasy’ (which Tolkien popularized with his Middle-Earth works) because a) its story is told on an epic scale and deals with events that could affect the future of the world that the characters inhabit, and b) Miyazaki creates a world with histories, geography, languages and cultures etc. unique to our own, much like LOTR (which was an inspiration for Miyazaki to write Nausicaä). As I mentioned, I have been considering replacing both genres with ‘science fantasy’, but I kept both genres separate in the infobox to specify the kind of fantasy I think Nausicaä is a key example of. PatTheMoron (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is a disagreement that is likely to turn into a lengthy philosophical discussion about the meaning or definition of the words employed, I propose letting published authorities guide what should be listed under the Genre heading in the info box. Napier (1998), page 101, a text written by a recognized authority, explicitly quoted as a source in the article's main body prior to the current discussion, identifies the manga as "Fantasy" in the excerpt already quoted in the text body. Whether or not that suffices as a reason to include Fantasy as a genre in the info box seems to me to be more about discriminating how many genres should be listed rather than a discussion between Wikipedia editors whether or not someone like Susan J. Napier is correct in assigning such a descriptive term as fantasy to this particular manga. That's what it would come down to but given the guidelines for writing articles, Napier's writings effectively preclude this discussion and unless an other authoritative text is cited where Napier's characterisation is refuted as inaccurate I suggest not arguing that point here. Given the dispute and repeated reversion of edits in recent days, it seems to me that an equally reliable source needs to be cited before someone inserts "High Fantasy" or "Science Fantasy" - or more generally makes further changes the Genres listed in the info box again. Source them first, then select a few seems to be the way forward....
 * Peter Paik's From Utopia to Apocalypse has not been referenced in the article yet but his book is perhaps the most explicit source that can be referenced for assigning the Apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic label since chapter three is specifically about that topic in relation to Nausicaa. Other works speak of Dystopian ... Etc. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I own a reference book named 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die (from Universe Publishing), which lists Nausicaä as a fantasy/science fiction manga. However, it also explicitly describes its setting as Apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic. I'll try and look up From Utopia to Apocalypse's publishing details and add both sources, as well as add the 1001 Comics review of the manga to the 'reception' section. If you could add any other useful info from Paik's book, please do. PS The main reason why I consider Nausicaä a high fantasy work is because, according to this source from the movie's article (McCarthy, Helen (1999). Hayao Miyazaki Master of Japanese Animation. Stone Bridge Press. pp. 72–92. ISBN 1880656418), Miyazaki was 'inspired by a range of works including Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea, Brian Aldiss's Hothouse, Isaac Asimov's Nightfall, and J.R.R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.' Earthsea and LOTR are major examples of high fantasy, and since the manga shares many elements of the genre and those works (ie. epic scale, different world from our own in terms of culture and geography etc). I also used references from Wikipedia's own article on high fantasy, in particular this passage: Nikki Gamble distinguishes three subtypes of high fantasy: However, I'm not sure if it's correct to use these statements to assess Nausicaä as a high fantasy work. PatTheMoron (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A setting in which the primary world does not exist That is, the primary is either separated from the setting entirely, or is separated from it by a great distance in space and/or time.
 * The secondary/parallel world(s) is (are) entered through a portal from the primary world
 * A distinct world-within-a-world is part of the primary world


 * The "primary world" is this planet, a few thousand years in the future, as described in the first line of the first paragraph of the first volume of the manga. The story which follows is about the consequences of mankind's use of technology on this planet following the Industrial Revolution which "had spread from the western fringes of Eurasia" (the latter being a continental landmass on the planet Earth). There are no dragons, or wizards, or elves, or vampires, or magic (unless you think telepathy is magic). There are, however, guns, jet engines, airships, a (crashed) space craft, holograms, and genetically engineered creatures (including human beings); all of which can be found in science fiction, but not fantasy. By your (WP-derived) definition Star Wars should be classified as "high fantasy" before Nausicaa, so why don't you introduce your ideas there first and see how far it gets you. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that directly states that the genre is of the work is either fantasy or high fantasy, it should not be included in the article much less the infobox. This is to ensure the article complies with the verifiability and no original research policies. Applying your own reasonings to justify either genre without a direct citation is a violation of both policies. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I do actually have an published source which should clarify this issue – the aforementioned comic-based reference book 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die (the review of which I recently added to the ‘Reception’ section of the article). The book categorizes Nausicaä as a work of fantasy and science fiction, but also explicitly states in the book’s summary of the plot that the story also takes place in an apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic setting. I’ll use that as a reference for all three genres in the infobox. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Looks like Verso.Sciolto has already done that for me. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA class?
Is anyone willing to see if this article can be considered GA-class? There are plenty of references used throughout the article (in fact, more so than the movie's article from a variety of sources, and the overall structure is appropriate. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From a quick look I'd say it's better than I used to remember. An obvious problem, however, is the lead, which doesn't summarize the article completely. There's only info about the plot, a few on released and on the film adaptation but nothing on development or reception. A good lead is part of the second point of the first criteria for a GA. Good luck, anyway. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, but would you be able to look over/add anything to it? PatTheMoron (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on / Following serialization - Precision.
Responding to the note currently posted in the article as an edit summary: 'Following the serialization of' is probably more appropriate that 'based on', since this source (http://www.utdallas.edu/research/spacesciences/hairston/nausicaamanga_film.html - from the University of Dallas) covers the areas of the manga the film adapts, and since this source (http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/manga/chapter_guide.html) shows that chapters 15 and 16 are the opening chapters of vol. 3, none of which was adapted for the film." I'm not disputing that the film's eventual story incorporates little if anything from chapters 15 and 16 but the adaptation process was a little more complex and closely related to the material in print at the time while the sentence construction with the word "following" introduces an anachronism of its own - since the adaptation process/planning already started prior to the publication of those two chapters in Animage - hence my edit attempting to incorporate "based on". I acknowledge that my edit resulted in the loss of a different nuance than the one I was aiming to incorporate, however. Both my edit and the current sentence lack some precision, imo. Since we all appear to have a tendency to belabour what must to others seem like minor points I hope we can continue to make the article even more precise. On a related note. The linked "Chapter Guide" table from nausicaa.net is not entirely clear on this but the first pages of chapter 15 (May 1983 issue Animage, pages 181-188) were -with several modifications and overlap due to shifting around retained panels- reprinted in Volume 2 (Pages 129-136). The remaining pages of the chapter (AM 1983.5 pages 188-204) were - also with modifications- used as the opening pages of Volume 3 (pages 9-25). (In the first volume of the Viz Deluxe 2 volume box set this split of chapter 15 corresponds with pages 257-264 and 267-283 respectively).Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My 'Following serialization' edit was based on the fact that I felt that it would be redundant to say 'based on' after stating that the film was an adaptation, and wanted to specify that not all of the chapter Miyazaki had written at that point were incorporated into the movie. However, if you feel 'based on' or something else would be more appropriate, feel free to replace what I've added. PatTheMoron (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article that can possibly help?
Hi! When I was in the process of finding articles of an unrelated subject, I found this link -

Miyazaki Hayao's Epic Comic Series: "Nausicaä in the Valley of the Wind:" An Attempt at Interpretation

A better link from where you can get a pdf of it if you don't want to go through the JSTOR process: Nichibuken Japan Review.

I don't know if it's redundant or not, but just wanted to offer it, anyway. Good luck with the GA review! LeftAire (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take a look and see what I can do with it. PatTheMoron (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) → Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind – The movie and the character are basically subtopics of the manga, which is by far the most important topic by this name. The other topics are discussed in the article, which makes a disambiguation page superfluous. bd2412 T 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the movie is the primary topic. If anything should get the base location, it is the movie. If it isn't the movie, then either a disambiguation page be there or a franchise page should be created; but it would not be the manga. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the disambiguation seems to be fine as is. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as they are all equally notable. It's fine the way it is. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The film seems to be better known outside Japan; at the very least the manga is not clearly the primary topic. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what is needed here is a franchise page, then. I am unable to locate any use of the phrase "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" that is not in some way related to this franchise. bd2412  T 00:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree with the logic, let's not stir up a hornet's nest. Lots of editors hold the opposite position; it required quite a determined amount of arguing to deter an attempt to make the film the primary. Read the archive |discussion on the film's talk page. The status quo is acceptable. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.