Talk:Howl's Moving Castle (film)

Soundtrack

Anything on the original score? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.150.204 (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Steampunk-esque setting

Is it worth mentioning the steampunk (or maybe dieselpunk or some other type of fictional technology) like setting in the Differences between film and novel section? I might be wrong, but I don't think the book has things like giant, flying battleships or motorised carriages, and they have a pretty large role in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.189.52 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy?

It says here on this page that Mamoru Hosoda QUIT, after Studio Ghibli did not approve any of his concepts. However on his OWN page it simply says that they pulled him from the project after he failed to produce a concept they found acceptable.

Anyone know which (if either) of these is accurate? 121.217.141.124 (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done The source on Hosoda's article supports the claim that he quit. I have made the change. Reach Out to the Truth 15:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation style

I am planing to change the citation style to sfn citations as part of an overhaul, because when using book sources, they provide for easier verifiability. If anyone has any objections, however, feel free to revert me, and I'm happy to discuss them here. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Hello. I think the reception section may need to be expanded with other reviewers from newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and some Japanese sources (The Japan Times, etc.). Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Lord Sjones23; I think that's an excellent idea. I would especially appreciate it if you could add some stuff from Japanese sources. I've found a few scholarly works on this film, which will be very useful for a "themes" section, but will also give us some stuff for "reception." Also, I hope you have no objections to the citation style change? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objections to the style change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent: I've implemented it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• This review that I came across (and others, I'm sure) praise specific aspects of the production. Given that we already have a fair amount of information in the "reception" section, I'm wondering whether that stuff would be more useful in the production section. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not able to find more information about things this film has influenced; so per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm wondering if that subsection should just be deleted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've removed this: if anybody has issues, I'm happy to discuss this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Character sections

@Sjones23: and anybody else who is watching this page; do you think we need to insert a brief section on each character? I'm personally ambivalent as to that sort of organization, but there seems to be fair amount of information. On the other hand, most of it is already covered in the plot, themes, and comparison section. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Howl's Moving Castle (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job, and working together I think you've uplevelled this a good bit since its nomination state, which was appropriate for GA nom in the first place.

Initial Thoughts

• Witch is capitalized far more often than it needs to be. When used alone, it is not a proper name.
  • done
• The 'flight' section is an entire paragraph sourced to one reference. I know for a fact that you can find more references on that. The assertion that The Wind Rises has the strongest focus on flying is also debatable--I would say that Porco Rosso or Castle in the Sky each have a lot to commend them as well. I don't doubt that the one cited source says that, but it'd be better to have a variety of RS commentators.
  • Okay, I've added stuff to this section, changed the thrust of it a little, and changed that sentence about The Wind Rises. Take a look. I'm still looking for more references specifically to flight in this film, but they don't seem available; it looks like when people want to discuss Miyazaki's portrayals of flight, they go to a different film.
  • I'm not ignoring this point: i'm trying to find information, and it's proving strangely challenging. I am, however, thinking of changing it to a section that covers technology more generally, as I have found a couple of sources which discuss this.
• There is only one picture here. We have a freely usable picture of Miyazaki himself, what about other key roles? Voice actors, perhaps?
  • I've added a few. I'd have liked to have images of the Japanese voice actors, but those aren't available, unfortunately...
• In the 'old age and compassion' I'm not sure I agree that what the article characterizes as feminism would be universally accepted as such. Can we put it in the source's voice, maybe with a quote?
  • done
• Quoting "devotion" is unnecessary.
  • done
• "The idea of compassion is strongly demonstrated when Sophie takes in the witch of the waste when the latter is rendered decrepit by Madame Suliman, despite the witch having been the one to curse Sophie in the first place." Awkward--I can think of 2-3 obvious ways to improve the sentence structure and clarity... just pick one and go for it.
  • I've modified this, take a look
• "Mamoru Hosoda of Toei Animation was originally selected to direct the film, but quit after Studio Ghibli's executives rejected any of his concept ideas." Any? Many?
  • That's a typo, should have been "many." fixed.
• Overlinkage? hatter, anti-war, wizard, bombed, masculinity... Hmmm.... I'm not sure I'd link all those.
  • Yes, there's a few too many. I've unlinked bombing and wizard. The others are more central to the article, so I'd prefer to leave them linked; I did remove one link to hatter
• Venice Film Festival is bluelinked once in the Accolades section, but 61st... is redlinked above.
  • fixed
• Overall in the Accolades section, there seems to be a relatively low number of awards for which the film received a nomination that it didn't also win. How sure are we that this is complete?
  • The answer is that it's absolutely not complete. Per MOSFILM, if the accolades overwhelm the article, splitting them off and summarizing them is appropriate. I'm working on the "splitting off" bit; this is the summary, which I've tried to confine to truly notable wins and nominations. Open to shuffling which entries are presented.

At any rate, that's my first pass through the text. More thoughts later, but this gives you some things to address. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. It may take me until tomorrow night (~24 hours) to go through a second, in-depth pass and detailed criteria review, but your prompt responsiveness is noted and appreciated. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I do my best :) Thanks too for picking this up quickly: I've never had a same-day response before! Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going to pick something moderately old, but I saw this nom pop up on my watchlist, so I hopped on it since I'm quite familiar with all of Miyazaki's work. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Second Pass

• Thanks for adding the images, but it looks like you need to add a second fair use rationale for the picture of Diana Wynne Jones. Alternatively, you could take it out, as you've added plenty more relevant images already. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Taken it out: I didn't notice it was fair use, my bad. Thought I'd checked that.
• Can you add alt text to the images? And is it possible to display the poster image perhaps 20% larger? Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• I see three issues listed at [1]. Can you update those links and/or retrieve them from Internet Archive or similar? Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added an archive-url to one of them. The other two seem to be false positives, in that the links work fine (I double checked them) and there's no registration required or anything that would make it specific to my computer, so I'm not sure what it is I need to fix...
  • I missed one the first time, the cite that gives a 403 error. I've converted that into a journal citation; we'll have to live with no web access, unless the author decides to make it available again.

• Jclemens, I think I've gone through and either implemented or responded to all your points: take a look. I've also gone through all the prose again myself, and made some copy-edits. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Noted. Will get to them in the next 16 hours or so, depending on my schedule. Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Pass the Third

• "Miyazaki deliberately decided to make a film..." Glad he didn't accidentally decide to.
  • Haha point taken. done.
• "This plot change also involves some changes to the various characters involved" I'm sure it does, but I can imagine less awkward ways to say so. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked this, take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for a quick but very helpful review! Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Film plot

@KinkyLipids: Please take a look at WP:FILMPLOT. The details you are adding, while not incorrect, are taking this way over the limit; which is why they were omitted in the first place. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The added text agrees with the 400- to 700-word guideline. Wiki policy suggests having a discussion for allowing text that goes above the 700-word threshold, much less for text that is below the threshold. The changes also help complement the article's coverage of the movie's theme of pacifism, which is encouraged by Wiki policy. I was also in the process of trimming the long last paragraph before the reversion. When the summary is way below the limit, as it was before the added text, any addition helps improve the article and can be included without harm. Please let me edit. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KinkyLipids: It would seem that you are right about word count. That said, per WP:BRD, I'd ask that you discuss your changes your changes beforehand. The current version has been through a GA review: what, precisely, are the problems with it? Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: As a compromise, some of the added text can be dropped, such as Sophie's bacon and eggs breakfast, the scorch marks on the table, Howl rekindling Calcifer while Sophie cleans, or the fish market. Others that set the theme of the movie would improve the article if left in, such as the war preparations and the bombings far away and close to home. A plot summary should mention central plot devices, such as the magical door. There's an entire plot thread on the castle moving towards the royal city, allowing Sophie to escape the royal palace and crash-land into the arriving castle, damaging the castle and prompting the move to Sophie's house, which gets bombed and pushes Sophie to return to the castle in order to pull Howl away from the bombing.

(FWIW, in my last post, I used the word "policy" as a synonym for the 400- to 700-word Wiki guideline. I was mistaken.) KinkyLipids (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be okay with adding the magical door, and the flight and the crash landing, as you're right about their importance. I don't think we should mention the castle's movement, as this is only suggested, not made explicit. Vanamonde (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Howl's Moving Castle (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605230659/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2007.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2007.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Production companies in infobox

I believe that [ this] list of companies, which I removed, is far too detailed for the infobox. The credits of the film will, of necessity, contain every company at all connected with the effort; our article, and the infobox in particular, is an overview, which needs to mention only the most salient details. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am just confused about why all the companies that worked on this movie cannot be listed on this article, yet other Studio Ghibli films and many other movies can still have them in. That talk page post was no help at all for me. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Essentially, it's a question of giving them undue weight, especially in the infobox, which is supposed to provide an overview of the subject. For instance: does any of the commentary about the film give prominent mention to the companies you wish to add? Not as far as I can see. Vanamonde (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know Studio Ghibli were mainly involved with it, but the other companies listed down have relation, all of the companies are in the "Present" screen after the Studio Ghibli logo. IMDB (even though it's not a reliable source) also lists them down as Production Companies alongside others who are only seen in the end credits.

• Tokuma Shoten owned Studio Ghibli as the time, and this was the last Ghibli film under their ownership before Studio Ghibli went independent and stopped crediting them in.
• Nippon Television Network have assisted in every Studio Ghibli film since Kiki's Delivery Service.
• Dentsu have been credited in most Ghibli films. Even their official website says so (even though Spirited Away is only listed in there) http://www.dentsu.com/business/showcase/entertainingtheworld.html
• Buena Vista Home Entertainment/Walt Disney Japan are the permanent Home Media distributors to all Studio Ghibli films in Japan, and so every film since My Neighbors the Yamadas has them credited.
• Mitsubishi is for the same reasons as Dentsu, lacking the site part.
• Toho is the permanent theatrical distributors to all Studio Ghibli films in Japan except for 2 of them.

If you say that was lengthy, then calling something lengthy would be adding every single company who weren't involved with the production and did some minor things, like Production IG (who were only a support studio) or loads of distributors. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• You're just proving my point, though. Can you find any reliable sources showing that any of these companies had a substantial role in the production? Vanamonde (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, here are some sources that cannot be edited.

http://link.oxfordmemoriallibrary.org/portal/Howls-moving-castle-Walt-Disney-Home/jSlFhHdIIbU/ (Dentsu Music and Entertainment, Inc. ; Mitsubishi Corporation ; NTV (Nippon Television Network) ; Tohokushinska Film Corp. ; Tokuma Shoten are listed on one of the sections. Tohokushinska Film Corp isn't mentioned on the Presents screen so I didn't add them in)

http://www.dentsu.com/ir/data/pdf/AR2005_E4.pdf (The movie is mentioned in this Annual Report from Dentsu, and it says they were involved in the production, marketing and sponsorship)

http://variety.com/2004/film/awards/howl-s-moving-castle-1200531227/ (This news article lists on the production "A Toho release of a Tokuma Shoten, Studio Ghibli, Nippon Television Network, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Mitsubishi, Toho presentation of a Studio Ghibli production.")

https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%8F%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB%E3%81%AE%E5%8B%95%E3%81%8F%E5%9F%8E-DVD-%E5%AE%AE%E5%B4%8E%E9%A7%BF/dp/B000ARV0FW/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1514821855&sr=1-1&keywords=%E3%83%8F%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB%E3%81%AE%E5%8B%95%E3%81%8F%E5%9F%8E+%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%82%B8%E3%82%AA%E3%82%B8%E3%83%96%E3%83%AA (I know Amazon well, so I know the placement of where the Distributor is. ブエナ・ビスタ・ホーム・エンターテイメント means Buena Vista Home Entertainment in english.

Okay then, reply on what you think. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Production Company Situation

How come it got removed again? I didn't put it in the production company section this time and nobody cared when I did the same thing to the other Ghibli movies (as only the animation studio is allowed for anime films). Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for missing this post. Essentially, the issue is of undue weight in the lead, and of requiring reliable sources. Even if you can source this properly, the place for it is the production section. What happens on other pages is not relevant here. Vanamonde (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So why is THIS page the only acceptation? Just asking, and have you even seen the movie to begin with? Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those questions are relevant (but yes, I've seen it a number of times). The variety source above is the only one that seems reliable, and the mention given to the other studios there is so short that the content is definitely out of place in the lead. I don't understand your resistance to doing what I've asked; finding more detailed sources, and then adding the content in the production section. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Turnip Head inspiration

Ensign of the 22º Gruppo of the Italian Air Force

Something I've found out today, Turnip head was clearly inspired by a symbol found on italian planes of 22º Gruppo autonomo caccia terrestre during WW2. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That link isn't working for me at the moment; but in any case, we need a reliable source for that suggestion. Also; while Miyazaki explored war vs pacifism a fair bit in the film, the book barely mentions those themes; and Turnip Head is certainly present in the book. Vanamonde (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, that's why I didn't add it to the article. Although knowing Miyazaki's fascination with WW2 planes in general and italian planes in particular it seems extremely plausible. Maybe someone can turn up with a Miyazaki quote somehow. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Music

"Symphony Suite, an album published on 21 January 2004 which in"

2005? --Dignitee (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Osmond

In the section 'Pacifism', an author named Andrew Osmond is quoted, but his name doesn't appear in the references or in the bibliography. In fact, his quotes are attached to another source, 'Kimmich 2007', which doesn't make any sense. Can someone explain this mistake or fix it? Centsmira (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Kimmich is reporting Osmond's words; lacking full access to either source at the moment I cannot make a change, but I don't see it as a major problem in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Centsmira (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

About referencing Online Ghibli

Is Online Ghibli a reliable source? It advertises itself as a fan site, but I'm not sure if it comes under the effect of WP:SELFPUB as its "About Us" page indicates that it has an editorial team. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: novel article moved to Howl's Moving Castle (novel); film article not moved. There's a clear consensus that the novel is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. However, participants were much more divided as to whether the film was primary, or whether this was a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. The main question around which the primary-topic discussion revolved was the first criteria, primariness by usage. It was shown that the film receives an appreciable lead in pageviews, but that the novel has a narrow lead in Google Scholar results. Participants were divided on whether the pageview lead was sufficient to establish a primary topic or not; the Google Scholar results were posted relatively late in the discussion and thus did not attract significant direct discussion. Personally, I don't see a consensus on whether the film is the primary topic or not. However, the strong consensus against the current status quo (novel holding primary title) means that a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close is the best solution here. To that end, I believe the WP:NOPRIMARY result is optimal; the mixed results of the provided evidence make it challenging to argue that one topic is uncontroversially primary, and moving to NOPRIMARY is in line with the conservative approach that I feel NOTCURRENTTITLE closes should take when feasible (contra moving the film to the primary title, which would be a more dramatic change and harder to undo).

As I'm establishing a DAB at the base name, I should also note that a few participants expressed opposition to a primary DAB on the grounds that it would result in no readers landing directly on their desired article; however, I placed fairly little weight on this argument, as it achieved only a slim minority of support and seems to be grounded in a fairly uncommon reading of primary topic policy. Thus, this did not shake my stance that a WP:NOPRIMARY result would be best aligned with the interests of the discussion participants and the guidance of WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

---

• Howl's Moving Castle (film) → Howl's Moving Castle
• Howl's Moving Castle → Howl's Moving Castle (novel)

– The film, which is loosely based on the book, seems to be the primary topic in this case. It consistently maintains about four times the pageviews as the book, and is arguably the more culturally impactful work of the two. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm going to leave a bolded !vote here, as I'm genuinely undecided. Based on search results, it does seem that the film is the more common topic of the two, though of course that's tricky to decide when the titles are the same. Yet the book came first, and was popular, even if not a massive best-seller. I also suspect that in general, a film adaptation of a popular book by a major studio is going to get more views than the book itself; but I'm not sure I'm comfortable deciding that the film is always the primary topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: I was also thinking much of what you've said here, but eventually decided to propose to consider the film as the primary topic. I am, of course, open to discussion on whether this is a no primary topic situation, and if disambiguation may be required. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  A disambiguation page would be the worst option. As things are now, 1 of 4 readers seeking "Howl's Moving Castle" is on the article they want and 3 of 4 click once on the hatnote. Under the proposed move, 3 out of 4 would be on the correct article and 1 out of 4 would need to click once on the hatnote. If there were a two-entry dab page, no one would be on the article they want and everyone would have to click through the dab page. It's even worse when you consider that a certain number of readers will want to read both articles anyway. Better to leave things as they are if the move if not approved as proposed. Station1 (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Station1: I'm not personally of the opinion that one extra click is such a burden for readers; the important part is that they will undoubtedly be led to the page they were looking for. I also brought it up partially to address the concern Vanamonde93 brought up about Wikipedia sending the message to its readers that one topic is more important than the other. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the burden would be extremely minor, but why place any burden at all, when there's no off-setting benefit? All readers will be led to the page they're looking for with a maximum of one extra click, under any of the 3 possibilities mentioned. Station1 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, I believe the benefit would be to obviously remove the ambiguity, and send the message about the existence of a primary topic — the latter of which I feel is the most important point to be considered in this RM discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose first, support second, DAB should be at basename per WP:NOPRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support While I like the distinction between film and novel being in the title of the article, I also think this change is fine. Since the second sentence of the article mentions and directs to the novel's page it’s a minimal change. I do think that the film would win out as the primary topic. Sleepvertical (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Move. I also support the move, since the film very much seems to be the primary topic. While it's based on the book, the film definitely seems to be the topic that the average user would search for, so it should be presumed to be the primary topic. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, I oppose a DAB page: I agree at least a fraction of editors should end up with what they're looking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the nominator that the film is the primary topic. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes maybe a DAB would be the best choice in the absence of a clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Basename to DAB per WP:NOPRIMARY. While I appreciate the argument about reducing clicks, I don't think it's strong enough (not overwhelming enough) in a two-horse race to justify effectively making the book comparatively harder to find.
  • Also (having found the words to express an instinct) I don't think users would find a problem with having a DAB for this. It's reasonable for an encyclopedia to ask if someone means the book (which was popular for a book and by a well-known author) or the film.OsFish (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• I was a bit on the fence about it before, but I'd like to change my !vote as nominator to disambiguate per previous comments by myself and other editors. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment From a quick look over the first four pages of Google Scholar results for "Howl's Moving Castle": 19 articles about just the book, 14 movie, 6 both, 1 unclear. Maybe suggests base name dab? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: We can follow the precedent set with Kiki's Delivery Service where the movie, like Howl's Moving Castle, is the primary topic over the novel. BLITZKRIEGCAT (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to note that there are some differences with that situation and this one when considering the book's notability relative to its film adaptation. Howl's Moving Castle was published in English by a relatively well-known British author, and has enjoyed some popularity in the English-speaking world outside of attention as a result of the film, which is not really the case with Kiki's Delivery Service. There is a bit of confusing precedent set by the article names of other Ghibli works (don't ask, honestly), so I think this situation should be judged on its own, without considering previous decisions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the unreliable sources tag

Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)