Wikipedia

Talk:Departures (2008 film)/Archive 2

< Talk:Departures (2008 film)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Crisco 1492 in topic little suggestion & question
Archive 1Archive 2

This article is a classic example of what a total violation of WP:OWN is!!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First the editors Curly Turkey and Crisco 1492 have a definite claim to this page and its content.

Second this has created a situation where even the addition of a simple easy-to-use cast list has become an issue!!

Third the sole authors of this article - and their flagrant violation of WP:OWN - proves once again that many people who edit these articles are not really doing them for some greater good or the dissemination of worthwhile knowledge but for selfish egotistical reasons.

Fourthly this has created a vanity project that serves no one but the authors themselves. For example without a cast list are readers expected to trawl through the entire plot to pick out notable actors names from their appearance as characters in the film? How is that an efficient way to provide clear and concise information? Linking names to characters in a plot narrative is like leaving disassociated breadcrumbs around a maze!

Finally thanks to these editors' ego trip....this article (a featured article no less) is just one big tautological pile of crap because almost half of it is about its "Reception". A cut-and-paste job of just about every newspaper article that ever mentioned it by name. FFS how many ways do you need to the same thing??? Hey it was a surprise success. Yeah we get that! But it's boring, repetitive and not needed. You know it's funny but if a random article from its history is selected: 11:03, 19 August 2012 it can tell me more succinctly the facts about this film than the bloated turgid pile of waffle that this article is now. Back in 21012 there were even track listings of the soundtrack, perfect for doing a Youtube search to find them. None now!

Is getting a featured article like winning a high school essay contest? Because it sure as hell isn't about writing for a broad audience wanting tight, informative encyclopedic information! 09:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.0.211 (talk)

  • "Almost half" reviews? I just counted the wordage; 1200 words and change, AKA less than a fifth of the length of the article. The track list was completely unreferenced, as was most of the article at the time. There was nothing of the "how" of Departures, either, nor the (considerable) academic and critical analysis of its themes. Your hyperbole is not helping your point, nor is your disregard for Wikipedia's citation requirements. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • IP 5.81.0.211: Inwind and Crisco disagreed about the list, I remained neutral, and nobody else took part in the discussion—by well-established consensus, that equates to maintaining the status quo. Where does WP:OWN come into this? By the way, your tone is strikingly similar to IP 31.51.45.135—are you not the same user? Whoever you are, you have a unique understanding of the word "tautology". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Release

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The line "Ultimately, the film debuted at the Montreal World Film Festival in August 2008 and was rewarded with the festival's grand prize" doesn't have a source. Before I tag it with {{cn}} can that be found confirm the debut release date? And should "grand prize" be "Grand Prize" (or even better "Grand Prix")? I'll update the infobox to reflect the festival release and the domestic release, per WP:FILMRELEASE. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • How does that not have a source? This and the other two references apply to both your quoted sentence and the one after it. WP:CITE does not require each sentence to have a reference immediately after it, and implies ("An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote.", emphasis mine) that the current set-up is acceptable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:WHYCITE states "in particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", as in this case. It's not obvious from the paragraph that the film's debut is cited, hence why I posted this. It's still not 100% clear to the reader. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that a well-documented win is contentious enough that it is "challenged or likely to be challenged"? A win that is already directly cited further below ("Grand Prix des Amériques at the 32nd Montreal World Film Festival,[129]")? And you are forcing this view upon the article when even the policy in question doesn't specify that the citations have to be directly after the sentence in question? Fine. Have it your way. I've combined the two sentences. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood - I'm not challening the award win, but the debut date of the film. Is that clear now? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No, that's fine now. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

little suggestion & question

Latest comment: 9 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion

I'm translating this wonderful article to Chinese, just begin last night, now processing the "Style" section, I got some suggestions and questions follow (I'm Chinese, so please forgive my English is not very well):

  1. "As the film continues, Byrnes opined ..." This is the first time the reviewer's name came up, I think should mention his full name "Paul Byrnes", maybe even mention he is working for the newspaper at Sydney like below;
    My mistake (happened when refactoring the section). Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. "Yakita drew parallels between the instrument and the encoffining ceremony", also first time the name "Yakita" came up, and I can't found his (or her?) full name anywhere within the article, I check the source article "The dirty little secret of Oscar winner 'Departures'" by Roger Moore, still can't found anyone named "Yakita", consider this article has a lot about the director Yojiro Takita, maybe this is a typo?
  3. Still tranlating, maybe more will follow.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Translation and double check done about an hour ago, here's two minor suggestion: 1. "Explanatory notes" h.: Hirosue did not won, only nominated; 2. I seem some of the Japanese author has there original name with the source, like 勝田友巳, 渡辺祥子, 山根貞夫, 福永聖二... but still some doesn't, this could be very useful infomation for anyone doesn't familiar with the tranlation from English to Japanese, so is there any chance to add those names? At last I must say: consider the length for this article, I'm very surprice that I could only found those three minor problems, starting late March 2013, I already tranlate over 400 FA, FL & GA, this is still very impressed! Good job and thanks for kind words from User:Crisco 1492 & User:Curly Turkey，hope my effort will be appreciated some day at Chinese Wikipedia.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I only started adding the kanji in comments after I had trouble reading a couple of the names. Even simple, common names like 中島 are pronounced Nakajima for some families and Nakashima for others. And it works the other way—names like Tanabe, which is 田辺 for the mayor of my city, and 棚部 for one of the sources in the article. I'll definitely addng them in the future. Whoever came up with the idea of multiple readings for kanji needs a firm boot to the head. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The source says "2000年には映画『秘密』、2008年には映画『おくりびと』で、日本アカデミー賞優秀主演女優賞を受賞。", which means Hirosue won Best Actress both in 2000 for Himitsu and 2008 for Okuribito. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Got something (I forgot last night, sorry). Some award that already had link should be specific, like 29th Hong Kong Film Awards, and Hirosue's nomination, should be "nominated for a Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role", another one: 金鸡国际影展举行颁奖典礼, but within the article, is a red link "Golden Rooster and Hundred Flowers Film Festival", at China, Golden Rooster & Hundred Flowers are actually two seperate awards, the first will held at odd year, I mean like 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007..., second one held at 2002, 2004, 2006, and consider the source's title is "金鸡国际影展举行颁奖典礼" (which should tranlate to "Golden Rooster International Film Festival Awards Ceremony Held", add the first word"Golden"), so I think at here this red link is unnecessary, should just change to Golden Rooster International Film Festival.--Jarodalien (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Are we sure that this is the Golden Rooster? I know why Curly used ILL, because the Chinese article combines the two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    The Oricon source calls the award 金鶏百花賞, which should be the Chinese 中国金鸡百花电影节. I remember having difficulty figuring this out, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be wrong (or if the sources got it wrong—it's not like Japanese–Chinese communication is known for being strong). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    The ja.wp article 金鶏百花映画祭 is the one that lists Okuribito, and interwiki links to the Chinese 中国金鸡百花电影节. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    the "Golden Rooster and Hundred Flowers Film Festival" are actually two awards, one for odd year, another for even year, put them together is simply for people doesn't remember exactly which year some movie win some award, and base on another source this article list: 金鸡国际影展举行颁奖典礼, I'm sure this is only the "Golden Rooster International Film Festival Awards Ceremony Held".--Jarodalien (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I don't mind just having the link to GR. That's what several of the English sources had. Wish people on different Wikipedias would make up their minds whether or not they should be one or two articles, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Rotten Tomatoes source's publisher should be Flixster, like "publisher = Flixster | work = rotten tomatoes", and Metacritic should be "publisher = CBS | work = Metacritic", The New York Times should be "publisher = The New York Times Company | work = The New York Times". "work= The Hollywood Reporter | publisher = Prometheus Global Media", "publisher = IMDB.com | work = Box Office Mojo", "work = Variety | publisher = Penske Media Corporation"--Jarodalien (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    We haven't listed publishers for newspapers (any of them, far as I can tell), and for websites we've only listed those which are not necessarily recognizable as websites themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I keep on being told that either the sources should all have the publisher, or none of them. As I sometimes can't even figure out who the publisher is, I've taken to just dropping it across the board (except for books, of course). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that's silly, to be honest. All or none? No, please. We don't need a publisher for newspapers, generally, but online news sources (especially non-English ones) may not be recognized as easily by individuals checking the article, and thus should be included. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, that depends on what you mean by "publisher". In the case of "work= The Hollywood Reporter | publisher = Prometheus Global Media", many editors put "The Hollywood Reporter" as "publisher"—I imagine because it's not immediately clear what the poorly-named parameter "work" is supposed to be for. From your comment, I don't get the feeling that you mean it's silly to leave out "Prometheus Global Media". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Is fine for me, I just seem some articles had those, so I thought maybe this is the best something.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. The claim that this is the first Japanese production to win an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film utterly ignores the three Japanese films that won Honorary Foreign Language Awards for the best foreign language film released in the United States during the years prior to 1956: Rashomon (1951), Gate of Hell (1954), and Samurai, the Legend of Musashi (1955). The Honorary Foreign Language Award, given from 1947-1955, was the predecessor to the current Best Foreign Language Film Award that was introduced in 1956 to replace the Honorary Foreign Language Award. Some acknowledgement of this would be appropriate as how it's currently stated is misleading. Jlind (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Erm... did you miss the footnote? This one? It's covered. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe we could add "... though others had earlier won honorary awards" or something, and leave the details in the footnote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sources don't qualify their statement like that; we shouldn't in-text either. The statement remains 100% true even without a qualifier. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Of course it's true, but I imagine Jlind is perhaps not the only reader to misread it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'd rather we duplicate the footnote. I'll do that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    And done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for addressing this and duplicating the footnote. I'm fine with it not being in-line. Some exposition on why I raised it. I knew that it was the first for the Foreign Language merit award which is technically different from the previous honorary award it replaced. My first reaction on reading the main article was the problem a high school or lower division undergraduate student might have quoting the main text from this article and then being called to account for inaccuracy by a teacher, instructor or professor knowledgeable about the awards prior to 1956. It's why I characterized the omission as "misleading" verus "incorrect." High school and lower division undergrads are not always so rigorous to dig into references and the footnotes found in them (no excuse for a grad student). The problems they might encounter with an important clarification or stipulation missing in the main article or its footnotes is something to consider when writing a main article. Thanks again for looking at this and revising the footnotes. Jlind (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    No worries, though they really shouldn't be checking Wikipedia for information (for keywords or sources, okay, but for information...). That being said, a university professor or high school teacher who assigns Departures to his/her students is pretty darn awesome in my book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Departures_(2008_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1073162387"