Talk:Princess Mononoke

Using the The Empire Strikes Back article (which is an FA) as a point of reference, I included some footnotes regarding potential inflations where relevant in general, using the relevant templates ({{Inflation}}, {{Inflation/year}} and {{Inflation/fn}} templates. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi TechnoSquirrel69, here's the rationale behind my edits:

• "who, in defeating a supernaturally possessed boar, becomes embroiled in a conflict between a deforesting town" versus who journeys west to cure his cursed arm and becomes embroiled in the conflict between Irontown. My issues are that "his cursed armed" presupposes what the reader knows (and is maybe irrelevant for the lead secton). Also, in place of "Irontown", which means nothing to a newcomer in the lead, I provided a relevant description "a deforesting town".
• "wolf goddess Moro" versus goddess Moro. What's the criticism against providing this extra description?
• Addition of 'Eboshi goads San by calling her "Princess Mononoke"'. I felt this was useful since literally nowhere else on the page is the title explained in terms of who it's referencing.

Thoughts?? Wolfdog (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wolfdog, thanks for starting this discussion! Responses below.

• Ashitaka's desire to cure his arm is the reason he is banished from his village and his primary motivation (at least, at first) to journey west, so I think that's the more relevant detail to mention when summarizing the premise of the film. To a reader, that would bring up the natural question of why his arm is cursed, but I'm not too worried about that since it's immediately explained in the plot summary.
• I wasn't a fan of the adjective "deforesting", since I felt that flattened a lot of the nuances of the location that's discussed later in the article. However, I see your point regarding the contextless proper noun. I wouldn't mind adjusting the phrasing to "conflict between the forest of the gods and a nearby town" — what do you think?
• I felt that was redundant since "a pack of wolves" are mentioned just before this.
• The thing about the "Princess Mononoke" nickname is that — even though it's the title of the film — it never gets mentioned in the article again, as it's a relatively minor detail. I try to think of plot summaries through a very utilitarian lens; if a detail doesn't get brought up in the analysis or isn't important to understanding the narrative, it probably doesn't merit mentioning. It's worth noting that mononoke is defined and linked in § Early concepts and pre-production. If you feel strongly about explaining the nickname, maybe we can compromise on a footnote in the plot summary.

Let me know what you think of these. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. I do feel like it raises a natural question, so maybe we should delete it altogether? Why introduce something that immediately feels disorienting? On the other hand, I see your point that it's his main motivation. I guess I could go either way.
2. I like your solution here.
3. I don't think the pack of wolves mention automatically entails that a god is also a wolf god. But, no overpowering feeling here.
4. With this one, when I read the Early Concepts section, it made me feel that the phrase "Princess Mononoke" was just an old holdover or vestigial aspect of the title. But then rewatching I saw that it is in fact in the dialogue. I see your point that it's still kinda just a throwaway line though. Maybe that section would be an appropriate place to mention that it at least refers to San in the film (instead of the plot summary)?

Appreciate the collegiality. Wolfdog (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also had to look through the English dub to refresh my memory on whether the nickname is actually used by the characters. Also, after taking another look through the sources, I appear to have been mistaken about the relevance of the name to scholarly discussion — Denison discusses the translation of the film's title (Denison 2018, pp. 2–3) and Nicholson directly addresses the translation of the name (Nicholson 2018, pp. 134–135). There may be others, but that's what came up from a quick search. (There are a lot of sources about this film!) I think some prose about this could be added to § English dub and American release, which would then justify mentioning it in the plot summary. I'll need some more time to make those changes, but I've implemented your second and third points for now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wolfdog: I've made an addition discussing the "Princess Mononoke" name and added that detail to the plot summary as well. Let me know how that looks to you, and whether there's any other changes you'd like to discuss. Happy new year (in UTC, at least)! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much! Happy New Year! Wolfdog (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's already a fact that Avatar the last Airbender is based on this movie, it's just no one has mentioned the connection between those characters. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

If anyone can find them, please say something because I cannot. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey Luka Maglc, my first thought was to check the Avatar art book, but it doesn't appear to mention any connection. A quick Google search for related keywords only turned up a Reddit thread of people speculating on Azula's connections to Eboshi. I think it's been well established that Studio Ghibli's filmography as a whole influenced ATLA's style, but there doesn't seem to be a source discussing this specific instance of it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

In this reversal, you really do not think a single one of my dozens of addition are worthy of inclusion in the article User:TechnoSquirrel69? Not even a single hyperlink...? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey Alexandraaaacs1989! There are a few reasons that I reverted some of your changes (there are some additions and changes of phrasing that I kept that you can see in this collective diff). The general approach that I and a few other editors have taken to the plot summary is to keep it as minimal as possible for clarity, only including events that are essential to the narrative or are subject to analysis later in the article. Many of the details you added were true to the film's events, but don't need to be mentioned, in my opinion. For example, Asano and the samurai were intentionally omitted after this discussion, since they are not mentioned or analyzed in any of the academic sources mentioned later in the article, and overall have only a minor impact on the plot.

Since you mentioned the links, I'll elaborate on those: MOS:OVERLINK advises against linking common terms, which is why I removed things like "exportable goods". Some of the links were also bordering on being misleading: you added a link to tanegashima (gun), but that kind of device doesn't seem to have been introduced to Japan until 1543, creating a possible anachronism with events set in the Muromachi period (1336–1573). That's water under the bridge, though, as this detail is not essential reading for someone trying to understand this film, especially as this is a deeply fantastical work that plays pretty fast and loose with its historical references (as mentioned in § Style).

Hopefully that provides some explanation for why I removed so many of your additions. As I mentioned, I'm always open to discussion, so let me know if there are any details you feel strongly about including, and let's see if we can't come to a consensus! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply