Jump to content

Talk:Departures (2008 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleDepartures (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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know 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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"over" vs "more than"

[edit]

"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]
  • More from the style guides:
  • The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style
    over/more than
    While working as a newspaper editor in the late 19th century, William Cullen Bryant forbade the use of over in the sense of "more than," as in These rocks are over 5 million years old. Bryant provided no rationale for this injunction, but such was his stature that the stipulation was championed by other American editors, who also felt no reason to offer an explanation. Later usage critics allowed the usage in some contexts, but their reasons are dubious at best. In point of fact, over has been used as a synonym of more than since the 1300s. Since no reasonable justification for its ban has ever been expounded, it may be safely ignored.
  • New Hart's Rules:
    In expressing approximate figures some styles traditionally preferred more than to over. Modern usage tends to treat them as synonyms:
    She was born in Oxford and has lived in Ireland for over twenty-five years
    She was born in Oxford and has lived in Ireland for more than twenty-five years
    although there are certain contexts in which one or the other is syntactically correct:
    We spent a lot of time together, well over two months, and so we really got to know each other
    There's more than one way of tackling this problem
    or sounds more natural, e.g. in reference to age:
    Applicants must be over 25 and have had a clean driving licence for more than five years


"More than" is correct as it's dealing with a number (quantity) "more than a hundred Takita fans visit per day". In the very same section ("Impact") the opening paragraph states "...more than 230,000 copies were purchased". It would be incorrect to have that as "...over 230,000 copies were purchased". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a discussion when you ignore what the other person has posted, Lugnuts. I've just demonstrated to you where you are wrong, and you have not addressed it in any way, shape, or form. "Over" is and always has been correct when used for quantities, and this correct usage has only been disputed in recent history by a segment of the American population (and Chicago, Garner's, and the AP Stylebook disagree with the prescription). This is not an American film, and it's not written in American English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Please demonstrate your good faith by reverting the disputed edit and participating in finding a consensus for your change. If you fail to find a consensus it'll go right back to where it was regardless. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must have not seen my reply, above, which clearly states the correct position. I'll repeat it again: "More than" is correct as it's dealing with a number (quantity) "more than a hundred Takita fans visit per day". In the very same section ("Impact") the opening paragraph states "...more than 230,000 copies were purchased". It would be incorrect to have that as "...over 230,000 copies were purchased". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating your already-discredited position is not "discussing", Lugnuts. You're wrong, and I've demonstrated so. The ball is in your court to show that Chicago, Garner's, the AP Stylebook, and Fowler's are wrong. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why is "more than" already used in the exact same segment without issue? Is that incorrect too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A non sequitur. They're both correct, so leave them both alone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're both correct now. Crisco 1492 agrees, per his post on your talkpage. Lets get some further input - @Crisco 1492: & @The Rambling Man:. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"More than" please, per house style. Good movie too. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "house style", please? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the one where we stick to traditionally correct grammar and don't concede to clumsy and unhelpful erosions to the English language through poor education. I'm done here, feel free to piss away a few more hours arguing the toss instead of actually seeking to improve Wikipedia. This is getting a free pass to WP:LAME. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my question twice? [1][2] As an admin, you should be well aware that's way over the line. The question being: And why was The Rambling Man WP:CANVASSed? 18:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea. You removed my response twice. I keep seeing the same "you have messages" message every time I go to my talkpage. I don't know, nor do I really care that much. You need to understand that nothing sinister is going on here. I'm glad you asked your question. I would hazard a guess that i's related to the response I gave, i.e. that we shouldn't kowtow to the pathetic erosion of the English language by the sloth and lack of education of the majority of its users. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to know, I'm enjoying (or attempting to enjoy) my Saturday night, watching Blue Ruin and I don't need more of this endlessly lame debate. I am entirely in agreement with Lugnuts, there's nothing more to add. So please, get back to reality now and work on making things better, not worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, it looks like Curly Turkey added something to their comment, and The Rambling Man replied just after. Most likely a hidden edit conflict resulted in the accidental removal of Curly Turkey's added comment, sadly that happens. The simple fix was as Curly Turkey later did, to ensure both comments were preserved. I presume neither side noticed that they were removing the other editor's comment until it was fixed. Unfortunate, but I don't see significant fault from either editor, if my reading of the situation is right. Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Curly Turkey that over seems to be perfectly acceptable grammar. Can you give some evidence for it being incorrect in Canadian or Japanese English? If there's no reason to prefer either particular word (which would be the case if both are perfectly acceptable and understandable), then we should go with the original wording. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are synonyms in this situation, and I find it odd that a previous use of "more than" is being used as evidence that "over" is unacceptable. The use of synonyms is patently acceptable on Wikipedia, so long as it doesn't obfuscate the meaning. "Over" is both perfectly acceptable (as supported by the style guides referenced above) in English grammar, and in this context. If there is a "house rule" against the use of the word "over" in this situation, please link it. A claim that "we stick to traditionally correct grammar" without supporting evidence that "over" is "traditionally incorrect grammar" stands hollow. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Chris. Notably, since there is evidently a genuine dispute over whether or not the word "over" is acceptable, evidence for this house rule should be presented (which I presume means a discussion where this achieved consensus). You can't resonably expect someone to follow a "house rule", when they have good personal evidence their usage is perfectly acceptable English, and you have presented no evidence it isn't, or for this house rule. And note, this doesn't just affect this article, but any article me, Chris and Curly Turkey work on. Well I admit I don't work on many, I believe the other 2 editors do. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, to stop Curly crying some more - I didn't canvass anyone. I pinged two editors I thought would be interested in this issue for the following reasons: 1) Crisco as a contributor to the article in question and 2)TRM as an admin who deals with alot of issues around TFA/ITN, etc (mainpage articles in general). Check out the history on the mainpage's talkpage and ITN. TRM is very active in those areas. Why wouldn't you want to get the opinion of an valued editor in such a time? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I get a proper apology, and not some poor attempt to avoid being blocked, then I might consider it. Ball's in his court. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly is now reverting, so I've asked him to participate in this discussion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And of course he reverts the kind offer. Oh well. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: - can you at least join the discussion instead of edit warring? You are aware of WP:3RR judging by your block log. You can see that several others, including Woodrich, have told you more than is correct. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diff, please, of me saying that "more than" is correct. " "Over" is both perfectly acceptable (as supported by the style guides referenced above) in English grammar, and in this context." is unambiguously the opposite of that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, Woodrich - "I agree about the grammar issue, TBH". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My response was "I agree about the grammar issue" in a response to Curly Turkey on a comment made by Curly Turkey, on his talk page, and you thought I agreed with you? When I said that the grammar issue still needed to be dealt with (when the article had "more than" in place of "over")? When my post here was perfectly unambiguous? Alright. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too and thought it was ambigious at the time. It seemed to me easily to intepreted as you agreeing with either Lugnuts or Curly Turkey, in the sense that it could have either been "I agree (with Lugnuts) about the grammar issue, to be honest" or "I agree (with you Curly Turkey) about the grammar issue, to be honest". Lugnuts seemed to be intepreting it as agreeing with themselves, but I thought you'd clarify soon enough (which you did), so didn't think much of it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Chris Woodrich's comment on this talk page seems clear enough. (And their initial comment on Curly Turkey's talk page was fairly ambigious.)

I think the other point is that Curly Turkey has already provided evidence that over is acceptable. So far, all we have is Lugnuts who keeps insisting it's wrong but who hasn't provided any evidence for this and TRM who mentioned some house rule, but also provided no evidence for this (and from the comment above, may not intend to participate in this discussion any more).

I don't encourage edit warring (although there always needs to be at least 2 editors for an edit war, well with the odd exception of someone edit warring with themselves), but you can't simply insist that the other editor is in the wrong for reverting your change to the article and needs to talk. If all you've actually done on the talk page is kept insisting you are right without evidence and ignored the evidence presented by the other editor that you are wrong, there's really nothing to respond to.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lugnuts, unless you can provide sources to support your assertion, I'm going to reinsert "over". The three style guides already listed above unambiguously state that "over" is acceptable in such a case, and that prescriptions against using it are generally in American English (not the Canadian English used in this article). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. However, a mistake is still a mistake. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well wikipedia has always preferred to rely on reliable sources, rather than the word of Lugnuts. From your POV, not ideal, from our POV, we find it the best way to avoid mistakes. BTW, did you link to the wrong page? Because argumentum ad populum would suggest that changing the article based on the unsupported assertations of Lugnuts, TRM and a misunderstood comment from Chris Woodrich, is wrong. Preserving the article based on reliable sources, which as I mentioned is what we use on wikipedia, even if only 1 editor (actually 3) agreed with the views of RS, would be the right thing. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Moe. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased vs dead

[edit]

WP:EUPHEMISM begins with The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away and I would very strongly argue that deceased falls into the same category. Dead is a perfectly good, neutral, descriptive word. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "deceased" in some way non-neutral? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a euphemism. It is 8 letters rather than 4 and 2 syllables rather thaen 1. "Dead" is a perfectly good word, and being shorter, it is good writing to use it rather than a longer euphemistic one. --John (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with numbers, but I find it hard to imagine "deceased" being used to mean anything but "dead" or to soften the blow à la "departed". Besides, "families of the dead" and "families of the deceased" seem to have different idiomatic usages. I can imagine the first in the case of killed soldiers or bombing attack victims, while the latter seems more appropriate to everyday deaths. "Families of the dead" seems to carry a nuance inapproriate to the context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Curly here. "Deceased" and "dead" are synonyms, with slightly different connotations (as Curly has already touched on), and both have only one meaning: no longer living. Contextually, "deceased" works better, for the reasons Curly has indicated above (and a quick Google search shows the same difference). The article doesn't shy away from the word "dead", either. The version current as of this posting uses the word "dead" 17 times, whereas the word "deceased" is only used 3 (it would be 16-4 if the disputed instance in the summary were changed to "deceased"). Using synonyms to avoid repetitiveness is not "bad" writing. Rather, it's the opposite. An article would get rather dull if we only used "said" rather than include equally acceptable terms such as "stated" or "wrote". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm coming from this alert at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch (that's a WP:Permalink). Like I stated there, this was discussed before at that talk page; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 4#"Deceased" is much like "passed away", yes?. "Deceased" is fine to use in place of "dead," and, depending on the context, sounds better than using "dead." Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link. That's very useful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using synonyms to avoid repetition is definitely bad writing; it's called elegant variation and should be avoided it as it is a dreadful effect. That's an interesting old discussion where some people agreed that "deceased" could be ok, but I still maintain that it is euphemism, that it should be avoided. It is almost exactly the same as the example given in the MoS guideline, and that trumps a single discussion or the opinion of an editor that the euphemism "sounds better". --John (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, two things: (a) "elegant variation" is about more than simply the use of synonyms; and (b) as I pointed out, I'm pretty sure it's a matter of idiom rather than anything like "elegant variation"—as Crisco pointed out, "dead" dominates and "deceased" appears when the idiom seems to demand it (I don't think I can accept "the families of the dead" in the context—the bodies are not returning from the Battle of Midway). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Having said that, I do think "People who work closely with the dead" is a better fit than "People who work closely with the deceased", though partly from context not really given (it also applies to leatherworkers, etc, and we wouldn't speak of "deceased cattle"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Considering consensus at both that discussion and here seems to be that "deceased" is acceptable, and popular use shows a distinct difference in meaning, and that nobody here has supported your position, I think it's best to reinsert "deceased" into the plot. There is no consensus to remove it, and per WP:NOCON "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". On a related note, I have asked at the MOS talk page to see if we could get an FAQ of sorts of words which may or may not be considered troublesome, but the idea doesn't seem to have any traction.
Furthermore, your definition of elegant variation is certainly not in-line with what the article says. It defines the act as "the unnecessary, and sometimes misleading, use of synonyms to denote a single thing", rather than simple synonymy. This has some unmistakable examples; "Rarely does the 'Little Summer' linger until November, but at times its stay has been prolonged until quite late in the year's penultimate month" is indisputably problematic. Using the term "deceased" once, in a paragraph that has no other synonym for the word and a section that has only one other occurrence of a word meaning "not living", does not even begin to approach bad writing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it in "People who work closely with the dead", but "families of the dead" is problematic both in terms of flow and in meaning, considering the slightly different connotations discussed above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, that discussion I linked to involves editors of that guideline. Their opinions that "deceased" is or is not a euphemism are obviously important. Their opinions show that your interpretation of the guideline is just that -- your interpretation (well, yours and anyone who agrees with you). And that opinion trumps nothing in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And even if that discussion had involved none of the editors of that guideline, it still stands that this matter was extensively discussed at that guideline talk page, including via a WP:RfC, and the WP:Consensus of the community was that "deceased" is fine to use. If you want another extensive discussion on the matter, then, by all means, start another WP:RfC at that talk page and/or advertise the matter via the WP:Village pump. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the change from "deceased" to "dead" in this context. I imagine that "deceased" may sometimes be used as a euphemism for "dead", but this is not happening here. "Deceased" is the correct word to use in a more specific or intimate context. Both words are used in this article according to context, not merely to add variety. --Mirokado (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, agree with the views of Mirokado and Flyer22 (particularly about a new RFC should be started if it's felt the old one came to the wrong conclusion). Personally if you look at any English newspaper, and replace all instances (including from the police, court references etc) of "deceased" with dead or dead person/man/woman/whatever, I would find at least some usages just plain odd. Consider [3] for example. And note that while in this case, you could use the person's name, that wouldn't work if the name wasn't known, similarly words like victim and assailant also depend on details that may not be known whereas deceased only relies one one detail namely the person being dead. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amicus Curiae Comment: My take on this: much ado about little, but not quite nothing. Discussion highlighting the differences between the two words is appropriate. "Deceased" and "dead" are synonymous, and "deceased" is most definitely not a euphemism. The pair are a Latinate/Germanic doublet. [ Germanic and Latinate equivalents ] "Deceased" is a more refined Latinate synonym as its etymology traces to Old French and Latin. [ Wiktionary "deceased" entry ] "Dead" is Germanic in origin from Old English tracing to proto-Germanic, emerging in current Dutch and Danish with very similar pronunciation. [ Wiktionary "dead" entry ] In general, Latinate origin English word usage increases with age from infancy into adolescence, reading level and education. [ Latin influence in English ] That is the real difference between them. Softened and emotionally warmer euphemisms for comparison: "(dearly) departed," "lamented," "lost," and so on, some of which are ambiguous without a clear context. Read any current obituary column in a major newspaper and you'll find plenty more, or if you're in the mood for humor, see the Monty Python "Polly Parrot" sketch :) Both "deceased" and "dead" are equally unambiguous, objective, and emotionally cold. The latter is why both are avoided in obits and public visiting areas of funeral parlors in favor of warmer euphemisms. Regarding "dead" versus "deceased" usage, which is preferred is occasionally driven by what would be expected in a particular context, such as legal or medical writing. Most often it's subjective style in how a passage flows and "reads" with the reading level at which the rest of the passage is written. It has no impact on precision; either has the same clarity. Neither is "dead" any more succinct than "deceased." The argument that four letters and one syllable is more concise than eight letters with two is, at very best, exceptionally weak. The average number of letters per word, syllables per word and average number of words per sentence in an entire document are general statistical metrics for reading level estimates and likely comprehension by target demographics. [ Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests ] They do not measure precision or incisiveness. As a matter of subjective opinion, the usage of "dead" at the end of the sentence in question would be abruptly jarring to readers whereas the more refined "deceased" reads better in the sentence and the context of the entire paragraph. Jlind (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2015

[edit]
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: moved, previous title redirected to the dab page, Departure. Accolades list moved, too. I don't think it's the normal practice to move FACs and PRs so I haven't moved them, but if I'm wrong about that ping me or drop a note on my talk. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Departures (film) → Departures (2008 film) – Per WP:NCF, as Departures (2011 film) exists. This also includes the subpages Talk:Departures (film)/GA1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Departures (film)/archive1, and Wikipedia:Peer review/Departures (film)/archive1 © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 13:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Departures (2008 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:

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) 01:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Departures_(2008_film)&oldid=1206938831"