Jump to content

Talk:Dusha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming

[edit]

If current fan's film title translation will not be resulted by reliable sources (official english film title), I'll move the article's title back. — Al3xil ✉ 11:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, let's be polite first and try to find a consensus second. This is not a "fan's film title translation". Here are the sources:

--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Rubikonchik. I'll try to be polite and I ready for a discussion. First, your sources aint reliable: for example, both russia.rin and nationmaster articles are a copypaste from wikipedia. More reliable source IMDB mentioned it as "Dusha": [1] There is an another film with the same name: [2], I dont think the film title "soul" is an unique in the cinematograph. P.S.: before article's renaming you might discuss it. — Al3xil ✉ 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And about screenshots... Can you, Rubikonchik, download upload another screenshots without logos "фiльм"? If you havent a better version may be i can help with it. — Al3xil ✉ 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB is a freely modifiable source - so whoever went there and wrote whatever came to his/her mind. In case where there are numerous films with the same name - there are specific applicable rules of Wikipedia. You've broached one subject, haven't provided a single source about it, and moreover you are broaching (i) a second subject at he same time of a different movie called soul of which I personally have never heard and (ii) a third subject of changing logos... Are sure you really know what you want to do and that you have good reasons for it?--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB has wikipedia-like principles and i didnt wish to prove anything, it was an example. I tried to get what sources you used when you renamed the article: [3] Thats all what i want to know. (current sources are, as i said, unreliable). — Al3xil ✉ 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remove questions about a film title, but in the film midpoint isn't meaning a mystical "soul", "where is soul?" referred to the russian expression "singing with a soul" that meaning "inspired singing". In that case, more closer title translation is an "inspiration" (сonsidering that the film has no official english title). Have it in mind. cheers! — Al3xil ✉ 11:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film title does not come from this Russian expression. It comes from the dialogoue between Viktoria and the Old Man on the sea pear, where she hides incognito. He tells her that even if she loses her voice, her soul will continue to live in her songs. Viktoria answers: Soul? But where is this soul? Somewhere on youtube you may find a video with this scene in original Russian version... --Rubikonchik (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me? No, i was mistaken, sorry. I want that you, Rubikonchik, upload screenshots without logos in its right-upper corners. If it possible, of cause. But it was an off topic. — Al3xil ✉ 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming redux

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dusha → Soul (film) — No discussion took place before User:Erikupoeg moved unilaterally the article. The English title was moreover established by a previous related disussion on this very talk page.--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion between two Wikpedia editors will not establish an English title of a Russian movie. The movie would have had to screen or be released under the English title, otherwise it is a violation of WP:Name#Foreign names. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I find it's all logical to look for a consensus before the move, especially when this is a controversed move, a move which was already discussed on this very talk page. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the very initial move was made without any discussion, nor, this goes without saying, any research of consensus by User:Erikupoeg. By the way, just have a look how expediently User:Erikupoeg tries to modify the present state of Wikipedia, simply deleting any reference to Soul (film) everywhere. He has, however, never provided any source for his initial unilateral move. Does this validate the very initial move by User:Erikupoeg, meaning that for his move no consensus or discussion were necessary?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) Furthermore, back tot he topic, numerous sources were provided with the English title of the movie on this very talk page. Just see above:

http://who-is-who.com.ua/bookmaket/olimp2006/12/153/2.html

http://russia.rin.ru/guide_e/3/3/3.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sofia-Rotaru

--Rubikonchik (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are irrelevant, as per WP:Name#Foreign language: "If the film was released in the English-speaking world under its native title, use that throughout the article, but include an English translation in brackets after the first use." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have provided enough English speaking sources mentioning the exact title as Soul,

http://who-is-who.com.ua/bookmaket/olimp2006/12/153/2.html

http://russia.rin.ru/guide_e/3/3/3.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sofia-Rotaru

as no sources were provided for Dusha in English.--Rubikonchik (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Soul (film)

[edit]

Rubikonchik keeps directing the page to Dusha. I think it goes without saying, that the above consensus also prohibits the redirect, as Dusha was never released as Soul while there and imdb lists a number of films that do carry the international title Soul. Therefore, links like from Christopher Doyle article should not direct here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Soul (film) to Soul (disambiguation), where I have added a link to Dusha along with the two other films noted on the IMDB page, but that do not yet have articles. I assume from IMDB's ordering of the films that the two others may be more notable than Dusha, so I've included them as well (also to reduce confusion when linked to on pages like Christopher Doyle). This should address the concerns of both parties. -kotra (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think it's a very wise move.--Rubikonchik (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new problem with User:Erikupoeg is that he has laready modified all of the links to and from the article, replacing everywhere Soul with Dusha, and this before the closing of the ongoing debate. Is this normal?--Rubikonchik (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate. There is a consensus between involved editors regarding MOS:FILMS#Foreign-language titles and there are you, Rubikonchik, amply demonstrating your failure to address the policy. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure other editors will appreciate your phrase "there is no debate". They , and I actually as well, were all thinking there was a debate and a search of consensus, and no unilateral decision making. That's why actually everybody posts a message - because there is a debate. Otherwise we can have a robot (or a Hitler) who could "do the job"...--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look at this point like there will be a rough consensus (especially considering the greater consensus represented by policies and guidelines) to have the name be "Dusha", so all the "Soul"s may end up being changed to "Dusha" anyway. However, we should allow the full discussion time to pass before we start making changes. An administrator (not me) will evaluate if consensus exists here in probably a day or two, so there's no rush. -kotra (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gross violation of fair use criteria

[edit]
It is against the policy to use fair-use images without critical commentary or where these are not absolutely necessary to clarify a point. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a clear explanation which image violates which rule exactly. Moreover, you have nominated for deletion such mages as the ones depicting Sofia Rotaru and Mikhail Boyarsky performing in the first Soviet music video - the importance of such images is obvious. But on the top of all, before crying out loud "gross violation" I should recall you all the bad faith editing from your part in relation to Sofia Rotaru, namely when you lied on purpose and produced a fake translation of clear article about her revenues. I think that taking in conisderation all of this, you should come up with a better argument.--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanovich as the source for the viewing numbers of his film?

[edit]

The article currently features a wild claim of 57 million people viewing the film, citing an article as the source which in turn relies solely on a quote by Alexander Stefanovich, the director of the film. Not only is the director of a film unreliable as a source for his film's viewing numbers, in this article he admits starting rumours on the number of records sold by Alla Pugacheva. He is therefore as unreliable as a source can get on any viewing figures. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stefanovich is a reliable source. The above referenced article by User:Erikupoeg has nothing to do with the movie Soul herein. User:Erikupoeg, please, do not synthesise and personally interpret the sources, as this may lead you to provide a fake translation as you already did. --Rubikonchik (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is a violation of wp:selfpub #1. A fortiori, viewing numbers should be based on a counting method which Stefanovich in his article is not presenting. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that the matter in question is a Soviet film, so the statistical info of a kind might be restricted to the people involved. BTW, 57 million people seen a soviet film of 1981 by 2004 — is a pretty low figure for a country with 293 million population and limited access to foreign films in nearly decade after this film's release. It is about 1/3 of Moscow population on any given date between the release and interview, while a popular film is normally seen by majority of population. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort but I don't think you answered the question. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it goes, I would specifically note the director as source of this data in the text, so the readers can judge on their own. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I made an erroneous statement which I now stroked out. Though the rest is actually true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is this source lists 33.3 million viewers which is far more reliable than the director, who does not even cite his source. Or do you think he counted the people himself? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the reliability of this source, as it shows absolutely unbelievable figures for several films. Apart from that, this source list the data of 1996, which should naturally be lower. Furthermore, between these dates София Ротару enjoyed return to popular culture of Russia, which might have led to extra 25 million views (fairly moderate for 8 years). P.S.: I can't find any source of data listed on this page (apart from two names I never heard). Probably I'm missing something. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken - exact viewer numbers for Soviet films are dubious and should be excluded from here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point was that the ref You give seems less reliable to me, then the other ref. Personally I would see the inclusion of such numbers irrelevant to the topic, but there is at list one editor who wants numbers, so they might be useful there. I think You'd better find a way to include both numbers. I could try to help with wording, if needed, though films are out of scope of my editing, so I am not familiar with local habits. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last strange edits

[edit]

Here is my last proposed version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusha&action=historysubmit&diff=361509984&oldid=361507976 --Rubikonchik (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nown why does user Erikupoeg bring already discussed and improved changes and edits back??? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusha&action=historysubmit&diff=361514813&oldid=361509984 --Rubikonchik (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly was this request discussed? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please obstain from POV editing.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian and considered offering an opinion in this matter, but have chosen not to do so because I think that it can be better handled by a Third Opinion Wikipedian who speaks Russian and can better evaluate the sources being discussed. To that end, I've called this request to the attention of my colleague Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. He or any other 3O Wikipedian is free to take or reject this request, of course, and it is not "reserved" for him, me, or anyone else. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the idea of removing sources, while the claim about this film being the first Soviet musical film is really quite dubious (eg. there was a film of 1934, which is widely regarded as on of the first Soviet musical films: Jolly Fellows). I think You'd get much further by collaborating rather edit warring. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue here is the fact that Pugacheva was cast to star in the film initially before she broke up with the director. This is based on the interview with Boyarski and is backed by the Kinoexpert site. Rubikonchik keeps removing this information for unclear reasons. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep all the information backed by at least some links in the article, expressing the concerns about it. NPOV can be reached either removing POVs or adding them all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more concrete, are you now arguing against what you wrote earlier that the claim on the first Soviet music video was dubious, or is this specifically about the information on Pugacheva as the initial cast? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep information about Pugachova and both numbers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see we have Rubikonchik back in race disrespegarding other editors' arguments. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though WP:AGF doesn't allow me to comment on this situation more explicitly, the edit summary "back to the stable version" isn't a good choice to revert a consensus-based series of edits. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Jaan, please explain your concerns clearly here first.--Rubikonchik (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dusha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dusha. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dusha. 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) 00:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dusha&oldid=1207065267"