Departures (2008 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2015.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 12, 2014 Good article nominee Listed July 31, 2014 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 16, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in discussing his film Departures, director Yōjirō Takita drew parallels between cellists and morticians? Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Japanese FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force. Japan: Cinema FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:52, May 17, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Japanese cinema task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Death FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• Okuyama, Yoshiko (2013) "Shinto and Buddhist Metaphors in Departures," Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 17: Iss. 1, Article 39. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol17/iss1/39 - Reliable, do you think? I'm tempted to say yes. A bit of good stuff here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author, Yoshiko Okuyama, is an associate professor at the University of Hawaii, HILO (source), so I guess that's it. I'll get on this when I get back home. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says University of Nebraska at the top—I assume that's reliable. Journal of Religion & Film's a peer-reviewed journal. Looks legit to me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?
   • Yes, it was a typo. Now fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     • D'oh! That's me again. Thanks, Jaro and Curly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Still tranlating, maybe more will follow.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
   • By the way, Jarodalien, I've noticed all the work you've been doing translating FAs (like the Winsor McCay animation ones I wrote). Thanks a lot! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     • My thanks too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
   • 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)[reply]
   • 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)[reply]
     • The official website (here) says that Hirosue was only nominated in 2000. Will update this page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   • 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)[reply]
     • 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   Erm... did you miss the footnote? This one? It's covered. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   I'd rather we duplicate the footnote. I'll do that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   And done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just a total ego trip. A stable article is turned into a long-winded cut-and-paste. No more plain cast list, no more soundtrack list, no more simple location listing. Instead we have reams and reams of padding (ie twaddle) about how it was received and reviewed. Yeah we get that it was an international hit, but just how many reviewers comments does that require? Likewise how much does it matter the subject is taboo in Japan, it was a hit outside of Japan.

This article is why Wikipedia is a nothing more than an outlet for people with feeling of social inadequacies. The article is entirely invented by plagiarising what can be found on the internet or published sources (lol it's only an infringement of copyright if it's obvious, however all Wikipedia is paraphrased plagiarism!). Instead of keeping it tight - like the article was for an entire year, someone with a need to feel self important copy/pastes everything they can just so they can get a "good article". And in turn screws the reader.

Sorry but the article is now a self-indulgent piece of crap that serves no useful purpose except to the person who wrote it. And they now spend all their time like a loner with a shotgun trying to stop any edits that might harm their precious ego trip. You can feel the sanctimonious sense of achievement oozing from the article, how the information contained therein is not for informing the casual reader but garnering self promotion for the author. The sections are too long, and the writing boorish and verbose.

Anyone with half-a-brain should be given the choice of whether they wish to read the non self-indulgent article from a year ago or this testament to hubris! An article that is all ego trip is only "good" for its author not the reader.  :-( 31.51.45.135 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cast list is useful for the following reasons: Notable actors are listed (even if they have a minor role) - Concise Main actors can be found easily. There is no reason, why this section can not remain together with a plot section which also links to the main characters. A rule specific to one article created by the main contributers tastes a bit of ownership.Inwind (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a cast list: worked into the body of the plot. The main characters and their actors are readily accessible there, as is the context of their performance. Furthermore, WP:FILMCAST recommends that only one form of cast list be included, and notes that stand-alone lists work better for stub-class articles (which this is certainly not). Through the GA and FA review process, there have been no complaints over the current format; there is a WP:CONSENSUS that it is acceptable. Your arguments otherwise are not convincing. Of course, Curly Turkey may have other views. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, user Crisco 1492s edit removed the cast list and it was not challenged since. My edit changed the status quo, therefore WP:CONSENSUS is no longer true. Any other opinions ? Inwind (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have an opinion, but I'm for the status quo unless a consensus is formed to the contrary. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I quite honestly can't follow your logic, inwind. I've pointed you directly to the part of the MOS which implies that, in well-developed articles, a bare cast list is not enough/acceptable. You not only ignored that, but claimed that your edit (by a lone individual) is enough to overcome a consensus established by a dozen other editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think in this case, if we must have a section for casting list, it's should be more like Prometheus (2012 film)#Cast, with much detailed infomation. But consider there's already a "casting" section in this article, I think it's make this stand-alone lists pretty unnecessary, so I concur with Crisco 1492 here.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to adding an infobox in the casting section in a similar format as Fight Club ? Inwind (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More manageable, but even then (if we're using Fight Club as an example) we'd have to limit it to the main cast. We've already got a good image of Hirosue (though I'd prefer one of Motoki, if there were a free image available), and that's more useful than an infobox repeating information that's already in the plot section. According to MOS:IMAGELOCATION, we'd have to lose the image if we wanted to put in an infobox there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

"Over" vs "more than" has been a bugbear of American journalists since William Cullen Bryant invented this prescription in the late 19th century. It's largely ignored outside of journalism, and has rarely—if ever—been considered an issue outside of the US (this article is in Canadian English). I'd appreciate if Lugnuts would revert his mistaken "correction" in this article, which improves the article in no way.

• The Chicago Manual of Style: "As an equivalent of more than, this word [over] is perfectly good idiomatic English."
• Garner's Modern American Usage: "The charge that over is inferior to more than is a baseless crotchet."
• Fowler's Modern English Usage: "Since the later part of the 19c there has been a strong tradition in American newspapers and some American usage guides of hostility to the use of over with a follwing numeral ... In Britain, over has been used with a following numeral without restriction or adverse comment throughout the same period.
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]