This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Soviet and post-Soviet This page 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 This article is supported by the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force. Soviet Union: Russia This page is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles This page is supported by WikiProject Russia. Russia: Performing arts This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles This page is supported by the performing arts in Russia task force.

Since I'm not getting the idea of this task force, it makes no sense to create a task force based on a country that existed 20 years ago. If that's a pattern, should there be a task force "post-colonial British cinema" that would include cinema of India? Cinema should be categorized by different languages/cultures and in that sense the project should be renamed WikiProject Films/Russian and it should include movies made in Russian only!--Termer (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Including for example Baltic states in a "post soviet Cinema" category doesn't make any sense since the film-making tradition in those independent countries with distinct languages and cultures predates the soviet takeover in 1940.--Termer (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I've temporarily reverted your changes. While I understand the historical divisions between the Baltic States and Russia, from a film history perspective, their national cinema was largely controlled by, trained by, and influenced by, the USSR for a great majority of the time since filmmaking became active in the region. That's why they've been grouped together in this respect. Given that these factors, and the fact that they were a part of the Soviet Union, it is entirely valid to call it post-Soviet and keep it within the grouping. Your suggestion breaks down when it comes to things such as the filmography of non-Russian directors who worked both in the USSR and their home country after 1991 - are their post-1991 films suddenly to be broken into another task force? Many of the Baltic filmmakers of recent years were trained in the USSR and a large chunk of the Baltic cinema was sponsored by the USSR, so to force it to be riven because of political changes doesn't seem very relatistic. (And to the best of my knowledge, none of the Baltic states had an overwhelmingly flourishing film industry prior to their takeover - Lithuania's doesn't even start until the 1930s.)

This isn't intended as a sleight towards those countries, but simply a more logical (IMHO) way of organizing the geographic-based film task forces with a view towards common historical cinematic roots and cross-influences. Creating a separate Baltic states cinema task force does not make sense this respect, nor would it be sufficiently large for our purposes, and since we're eventually hoping to create enough national and regional task forces to cover all countries, it's a far better alternative than simply ignoring these countries' cinemas as if they didn't exist. That all being said, I would be happy to continue to discuss the matter with if you have any further questions, concerns, or comments. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girolamo Savonarola The reverts were noticed. First of all, since you have mentioned wikiprojects Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc. on the task force's page, please notify all relevant wikiprojcets to get a broader take on the issues and see what people think. After all, it might be just me who feels the way the task force has been attempted to put together is a bit, sorry but just weird.
Now to the business:

• from a film history perspective, their national cinema was largely controlled by, trained by, and influenced by, the USSR
  

From a film history perspective any country has been influenced by the Soviet cinema, starting with the Kuleshov Experiment up to implementing the editing techniques by Eisenstein. The former Soviet Republics have nothing more in common than during the Soviet era, after Stalin's death national filmmaking was made possible (after a brake since 1940 due to the Soviet takover) by financing and censoring it centrally from Moscow. To suggest that this created a bond between different cultures and their cinema simply has no bases whatsoever.

• the fact that they were a part of the Soviet Union. For how long this fact is going to be relevant? 25 years, 30, 50 after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
• none of the Baltic states had an overwhelmingly flourishing film industry prior to their takeover. None of the Baltic states never had or never going to have an overwhelmingly flourishing film industry since we're dealing with nations of about 1 million, 2 and 3 respectively.
  
• Lithuania's doesn't even start until the 1930s I don't know from where this claim comes from. It simply isn't true since the 30's was an end of an era for the Lithuanian cinema exactly like elsewhere in the world due to the great depression. Lithuanians most important director from the era was Jurgis Linartas and his most notable films were made in 1928 and 1931. [1]
  
• Creating a separate Baltic states cinema task force does not make sense this respect please do not assume but ask that question from the Wikiprojects that you have listed on this task force' page. I'd bet that nobody ever has and going to edit these related articles than the editors involved with the country projects already.
  

All for now, the bottom line, I think you should get some input and feedback from respective wikiprojects, Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "post-Soviet" remains relevant until we no longer have many active producers, directors and leading actors spanning both eras. Perhaps ten or twenty more years? LADave (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This task force was proposed back in May, and all of the relevant country WikiProjects were notified, much as they were again when it was created. No one else has raised any objections. All I see you arguing, however, is that you have a distaste for associating Estonia with Russia. I don't see how that's relevant to the organization of a regional task force. East Timor and Indonesia have had extremely poor relations for decades, but I don't see anyone complaining that they're both in the Southeast Asian task force. How long is the Soviet connection going to be relevant? I would suppose until it's no longer an overwhelming proportion of their film legacy. To use your post-colonial example, an Indian task force would have been unthinkable had we existed in 1947, and neither New Zealand nor Australia would have merited ones until the past decade or two. As for some sense of "offense", that's not really relevant to the considerations here - the German task force includes all of the Nazi films as well, even though many of them are deeply offense and embarrassing to the German public of today. So I must ask you - can you please point out why this task force is worse off for including the entire film histories of all of the republics? Something beyond personal nationalist grievances. For example, if we're going to create a Balkan task force, it's going to contain all of the Balkan countries; why should this be any different?

If, however, I'm misunderstanding you, and this is purely an objection to the name or icon used, then by all means, feel free to suggest alternatives. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be me but for some reason I haven't noticed and still can't see anything about "Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force" on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latvia, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lithuania? Perhaps it's time to re notify, it might have got lost in archives during summer holidays. In case the German task force would be called "Nazi post-Nazi task force" and include insignia of the totalitarian regime, that would be offensive indeed exactly like the current Soviet post-Soviet is. And what has this to do with associating Estonia with Russia? Exactly like what would Balkan, a region in Europe has to do with countries under the discussion that spread over 2 different continents? Sorry but we're not communicating too well. I'd put it on rest for now and hold up with any suggestions until there is more input from more, like you've put it: "post-soviet" wikiprojects.--Termer (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Soviet states appears to be the common term; I could not divine a better one from anything within the article. If you have a better idea, please feel free to present it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-Soviet states article doesn't cite any direct references and sources to the subject and it should be common knowledge that in fact the term is just a political claptrap that was used by talking heads on TV after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's been 20 years ever since. I don't have any better ideas at the moment since I don't understand like I hope I've explained, why would anybody put together such different cultures based on a transcontinental Soviet state that existed 20 years ago. Lets see if there is any interest at all to the subject and if anybody else has any different takes on the issues and then, lets take it from there--Termer (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your patience. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rationale for "post-Soviet" cinema, but there has to be a point in time when it is no longer "post-soviet". In the case of the Baltic states, that period ended in 1996, when the decline of cinema reached rock bottom with zero films produced in that year. In Estonia, 1997 marked the birth of a new era with the formation of the Estonian Film Foundation and the subsequent arrival of a new generation of film makers. "Post-Soviet cinema" implies certain stylistic/cinematic themes that were common across all the former Soviet republics, however this is no longer the case, and as it stands it is rather misleading. So while keeping the title, I would remove all the categories and wikiprojects mentioned in this project and keep only WikiProject Soviet Union and Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union Martintg (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Baltic cinemas of sufficient size and scope, I'd agree with you; however, given their small size (and even smaller representation here in number of articles), it is not practical to split them simply because of a film foundation being started. I think the problem here is the confusion of this grouping for a political one, when it is really more of a regional and historical one. We're trying to eventually have every country covered by national or regional task forces of sufficient size and scope, and I'm rather dubious that, at least as of 2008, there is enough content on Wikipedia to merit a Baltic cinema task force (typically at least 150-200 articles). That's not to say that a possibility for a future split isn't in the cards, but simply that it has to be organic and practical, and not merely to serve nationalist interests, which I think it would not be unfair to say are rather sour between some of these countries at the moment, and thus may be injecting bias into an otherwise academic principle of workgroup division. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my text, the issue is not political. "Post-Soviet" is an anachronism that implies a common cinematic theme of the past. Using "Post-Soviet" for simply a regional grouping does not make sense, since the Soviet Union extended to the Pacific. If you are concerned about taskforces of sufficient size and regional scope, then the Baltic states should really be grouped under "Northern European Cinema" so that Finland, and the Scandinavian countries can come under a taskforce. Currently these countries are not covered. Then there should be taskforce for Commonwealth of Independent States to cover the other countries. Martintg (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely me, because of my "nationalist bias", (after all, I'm a professional filmmaker (production artist) originally coming from the area), once again I miss to see how is this a regional and historical grouping? This grouping in fact is a political one since the name is politically predefined and for example dismisses the regional and historical pre-Soviet cinema not only regards the Baltic states first period of independence but also for example Cinema of the Russian Empire. Well, it's just seems its more convenient to keep these cinemas all together for now for WP task force purposes. Fine but in that sense the naming of the grouping should be more considerate and according to the facts and status quo: for example something like Commonwealth of Independent States and Baltic states cinema.That would cover all "pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet" periods of these countries including the most significant: Cinema of Russia--Termer (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions by Martintg in his second post make also sense to me. Since Baltic filmmakers work most closely with Scandinavians nowadays. There is a Nordic Baltic Film Fund [2] thats a major contributor at the region, that has also helped to launch the Baltic Film and Media School; Nordisk Film owned by Egmont has been behind 2 film companies in the Baltic countries, the Film Foundation system is based on the Scandinavian model. Therefor the Nordic Baltic cinema and Commonwealth of Independent States cinema task forces might be in better sync with current situation with cinemas and regions. In any case it's strange that Nordic countries are not covered at all considering such a giant in the World cinema like Ingmar Bergman and modern most known name such as Lars von Trier etc.--Termer (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We try to grow organically - a Nordic task force has been on the list of potential task forces for some time now. Since there hasn't been editorial demand for one yet, it hasn't been created. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been thinking over matters, and I have a proposal:

1. Soviet task force - historical period task force; covers all films, from all republics, made during their time in the USSR
2. CIS task force - covers all films from the CIS (1991-), perhaps also covers their pre-Soviet films (e.g. Russian Empire and 1890's Azeri films)
3. Nordic and Baltic task force - covers both regions, but only covers Baltic films pre and post inclusion in the USSR.

Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good proposal. Martintg (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been informed that Georgia has left the CIS (this week, no less). I'm not certain that this scheme works any better, either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girolamo Savonarola, I have some thoughts: the major difference I think, what you'd call Soviet cinema I'd call either Russian cinema during Soviet era or Cinema of Azerbaijan during Soviet era etc. I must admit, I'm not getting it really why would such a separate task force for a historical period would be necessary ? Also there is a huge difference periodically within the Soviet era cinema itself, the times when everything liberal was banned and censored without question by the Soviet authorities and than you have more liberal times, 60's and early 70's and then again back to nothing much during the Brezhnev era and then opening up during Perestroika. The thing is that within the Soviet Union, most often "Soviet cinema" has been only referred to the times when culture was under oppression. Nobody over there called the films done during liberal soviet eras "Soviet" since it very often included ani-Soviet (meaning anti censorship, anti single party rule etc.) themes. So the bottom line, the word Soviet by itself is just too controversial in my opinion. But in case there is a demand for such a task force, what do I know. So in case your suggestion have a separate Soviet task force makes sense to everybody else other than me, lets go for it. --Termer (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is at the heart of what (I believe) may be your misunderstanding of how our task forces work. They are workgroups for editors who have common interests to collaborate on articles and advise on common issues that may be facing many of these articles. They are not necessarily homogeneous topically, nor are they necessarily meant to be. If you look at the Indian task force, it comprises several radically different regions of the country's cinema, as well as both colonial and post-colonial films. The national/regional scopes also include works made outside of the countries by national filmmakers, international co-productions, and foreign films shooting in the countries. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problems with understanding how task forces work since I've initiated one by myself on WP and have participated in coupler as time has permitted. I mostly pointed out that the name "Soviet cinema" is controversial for the reasons I explained above. "Soviet cinema" can mean both, cinema made for the purposes of communist propaganda, that was more or less the official definition of the term by the Communist party. Or it can mean "cinema of the Soviet Union" that has much broader meaning and includes films that were not considered Soviet by the Soviet state officials. Hope thats more clear. So what I got out of t, in case Soviet task force is needed I'd call it "Cinema of the USSR" or "Cinema of Soviet Union" etc. or something similar to avoid misinterpretations. --Termer (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're starting to get into a degree of precision that's yielding diminishing returns, frankly. While that may be the more precise meaning (if you can provide some cited sources on that, it'd be great, btw), we already have existing task force structure that isn't organized in that way, nor is it likely that the average editor is going to distinguish between the two. (As the task force scope itself notes, it includes Russian Empire cinema, but for the sake of a concise title doesn't include that in the task force name.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to turn into a more general discussion and I don't think I'd have much to add. I didn't get it really for what exactly did you ask a cited source for? Perhaps it was about that cinema in Soviet Union was considered to be the most important tool of propaganda according to the Communist Party? there are a lot of citations by Soviet authorities regarding cinema published in Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. ISBN 9781860641671 --Termer (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are unnecessarily looking far too much into politics rather than what it is intended for -film. It is difficult to organize films because of different political backgrounds for countries such as Russia and Germany. But nobody can deny that the Soviet Union existed from 1917-1991 which is 74 years and a significant chunk of film history. Nazism as a state regime was around for, what 12 years? Whether you disliked this regime or not it still took up 3/4 of the twentieth century and given the growth of cinema during this period is perfectly valid. This also links together the history of cinema in the ex soviet states to which they were undeniably connected to Russian cinema, but then there is post Soviet cinema which clearly indicates this "regime is over", but still indicates that the project covers the new Russian cinema and the cinematic progression of the newer independent states. Personally I think it is a very good way of consolidating Russian and former Soviet bloc cinema as a whole. As for the legitimacy of countries like Azerbaijan or Estonia being seperate, I sincerely doubt there would be few if any editors interested in the individual cinemas of the ex Soviet states and as a topic is perfectly adequate for a taskforce. The only problem I see is that it excludes pre-Soviet cinema e.g Cinema of the Russian Empire which had some notable silent films. All I could suggest is renaming it to Russian and ex-Soviet cinema task force or something. I don't think it is as problematic as you might suggest Termer The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Russia and Ex-empire cinema", then we could include Poland, Finland and Alaska too. I'm joking. Martintg (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should come up with politically neutral name for the task force to avoid unnecessarily looking far too much into politics. You don't have ex-Nazi task force for films , do you? So why do you suggest ex Soviet for the name? I came here after I saw the posting about the new task force at the Baltic states notice board not because I have "interest" in the subject but because it's something I do for living and have been involved directly working in the area the task force should take care of. So far I don't see anybody signed up for this task force. Part of it is because political labels such as ex-Soviet are as insulting for related people exactly like calling somebody ex-Nazi or using N word for black people. So in case the name of this task force is meant to drive away editors, it's working on me at least. Come up and rename the task force with a politically neutral name, there are some suggestions up there, and we can move on with this.--Termer (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, why are we still arguing about this? Termer makes a good point, if you want to attract people to the task force, this isn't going to help. Girolamo came up with a good suggestion for three task forces, I think we could combine two of them into purely geographical entities:

1. Russia and CIS task force - rename the current task force- covers all films from Russia pre and post revolution, and the CIS (1991-), also covers Soviet period films. Georgia is out of the CIS now but no films have been made in the days since they have left, so we can ignore that fact for now.
2. Nordic and Baltic task force - create a new task force - covers both regions, (Finland was considered a Baltic state pre-1940) also includes Soviet period in the case of the Baltics.

--Martintg (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more suggestion among many: Here comes something interesting I happened to come across that has a lot of ideas: it would help to sort this thing out I think: The Red Screen By Anna Lawton p 293 Anna Lawton sees 5 conventional groups or subdivisions within Soviet cinema that are based on an ethnic and cultural backgrounds: based on her theses on "Soviet Cinema", I'd suggest renaming the workgroup into Russian, Baltic, Moldavian, Central Asian and Transcaucasian Cinema. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'd encourage everybody interested to read the book, very comprehensive and competent material!--Termer (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. or based on Martintg suggestions , that reflects the current status quo better perhaps. have Nordic-Baltic and Russian-Moldavian-Central Asian-Transcaucasian Cinema work groups, whatever, up to you, as long as offensive "ex-Soviet" etc. in workgroup names is avoided, I'm good.--Termer (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with those who say this should be renamed (BTW I can't find any notice to WikiProject Latvia or WP:BSNB made when this task force was proposed) and I believe that my motivation isn't just political. It makes perfect sense for me to have Soviet task force, but the Soviet cinema was different and what it was is now gone. First of all because Soviet system was different: everything was state funded, centralised, censored, disregarded copyrights and so on. Secondly it was 20 years ago - everything has changed, the cinema now is made by different people, it has different stars and during those 20 almost nothing was produced, so there is almost no continuity. ~~Xil (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed WikiProject Estonia from this taskforce, it's claimed this film taskforce is a "joint taskforce" run between the national WikiProjects and WikiProject Films, but I see no evidence of this, since the concerns of the members of Wikiproject Estonia are being contested rather then be taken on board. Martintg (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are here; we are discussing the matter at the moment. When we decide what to do, then we can make the changes - all of them. There's nothing to be lost from maintaining the status quo until we reach a conclusion.

Now, continuing things, what I'd suggest is that we draw up a poll with a number of options for each point and open it up for the community for a !vote, so that the WP Film editors can perhaps indicate their preference in these matters. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girolamo Savonarola, please note that polling is not a substitute for discussion since Wikipedia works by building consensus.--Termer (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a substitute for discussion, but if you'll read what you linked, you'll also see that it has its place. Given that we've had a lot of discussion and many proposals, a !vote may allow us to weed out some of these proposals and provide a focus on a few in particular. I'm not proposing it as a concluding matter per se (unless it is overwhelming), but rather as the next step given the current situation. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girolamo Savonarola, please note that polling is not a substitute for discussion since Wikipedia works by building consensus.--Termer (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. while speaking of "Film editors" you also had me in mind right? Even though I haven't been the most active contributor since film is not my hobby but work, I've helped out with History of film where my edits are among the last 500 [3]; Special effect where my edits are among the last 50 [4] based on the discussion we had in December 2007 [5]--Termer (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is "joint" taskforce run between WP Film and the national WP's, I assume the national WPs get a say too? Martintg (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think straw poll would be better than grinding same arguments over and over again - what would be the choises ? Just renaiming or what to do with modern films too ? ~~Xil (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the choice as two taskforces that people are willing to join:

1. Russia and CIS task force - rename the current task force- covers all films from Russia pre and post revolution, and the CIS (1991-), also covers Soviet period films. Georgia is out of the CIS now but no films have been made in the days since they have left, so we can ignore that fact for now.
2. Nordic and Baltic task force - create a new task force - covers both regions, (Finland was considered a Baltic state pre-1940), strong Swedish influence pre-1940 and post-1991 in Estonia.

--Martintg (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Soviet cinema task force, which would cover films produced in Soviet Union, when it existed ? I don't care about CIS as I don't know if their films are influenced by Russian films or not. Nordic and Baltic task force would be fine for pre- and post- Soviet films ~~Xil (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet cinema task force has existed thus far and should exist in the future, that's not a part of the discussion. It's about "post-soviet" , 20 years after it should be a good time to move on. Or else following the pattern, should we create a Post-colonial British Cinema task force and include Canada in it? --Termer (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposal

Here's the latest proposal based on what seems to be most feasible (IMHO), and my reasoning

1. Soviet cinema task force to cover all of the films and film-topics involving the USSR from 1917-1991. This is a historically notable and well-covered topic, which has carved out its own niche in scholarly studies.
2. Russia/CIS task force to cover all pre-1917 (or SSR annexation) films, as well as all 1991-present films from countries which are or have lately been member nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States. This makes sense in the light of regional grouping, common co-production amongst republics, and acknowledges the similar genealogy of these national cinemas to their Soviet period (as regards training and cultural cross-exposure). As for the case with Georgia, there's certainly on reason why a Caucasus cinema task force can't be created, but only providing that we already have a sufficient number of articles and editors to make such a task force feasible.
3. Which brings me to the last point. I've seen a lot of work from Termer and Martintg in the past few weeks put into creating and developing articles for Estonian cinema topics. Should such a pace be maintained over the near-to-mid term, and with slightly more editors joining them, I see no reason why there couldn't be a Baltic cinema task force of its own, in time. However, wedding it with the already-proposed Nordic cinema task force seems undesirable by outside editors who have already proposed the Nordic task force, nor is it warranted on an academic level, wherein virtually all of the film studies regarding Nordic or Scandinavian cinema omit any significant mention of the Baltic region's cinema. While there is no doubt from what has already been brought forward that there are Nordic co-productions, this is not in itself in the context of modern European film financing an exceptional occurrence, nor does it seem to be occurring in exceptional volume. Perhaps that may change in the future, but at the moment it's too tenuous a link to justify a Nordic-Baltic task force. However, as per above, it probably would be more beneficial to pursue expansion of the Baltic cinema article-base (and editorial pool), so as to preclude the need to have such a link. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm agreeable to the proposal as it splits the current task force into a Soviet cinema task force and a Russia/CIS task force. However I don't see the sense in delaying the creation of a Baltic cinema task force as suggested. By definition a "task force" is a group of people willing to work together on a common goal, and I know at least five people who are willing to work together in a Baltic cinema task force, while there are currently zero members in Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force as it stands. Martintg (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get five people here to sign onboard to a proposed Baltic cinema task force, then so be it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic cinema task force should be announced properly on every relevant national wiki project that such a task force has been proposed and clearly pointed out how and where exactly can you sign up for it.
Also, it wouldn't hurt if other national wiki projects starting with WikiProject Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan etc, would be notified one by one that they are included in this "post-soviet" task force and the discussion here. We are deciding things regarding the CIS without consulting the relevant wiki projects that are listed in the task force. Currently at least I'm not able to spot any notices on these national wikiprojects (with an exception of WikiProject_Russia). If the goal is to draw attention to cinema related articles and get some work done, all the listed national wikiprojects should be notified.--Termer (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that we're still brainstorming. But feel free to notify them now if you're so inclined. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't think it would be really my job to coordinate how the film task forces and national task forces get integrated. I didn't think it was cool how the Baltic national task forces were included here without proper announcements and proposals, and I'm just suggesting that perhaps the other national task forces might have some ideas too regarding their proposed involvement here. Thats all --Termer (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but on the other hand, what we're mainly discussing is splitting off the Baltic states as well as an historical period, so from an integration perspective, they've already been notified; we're not otherwise changing the composition of the countries covered. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be me since I've worked the most of my career about 12 years for Nordisk Film in Copenhagen Denmark and therefore professionally I'd be closest to a Nordic cinema task force. Also culturally Finland and Estonia especially in the sense of cinema are closest to each other. Priit Pärn an Estonian animation director has been busy starting up the animation tradition in Finland where he has been teaching at the Arts Academy of Turku since 1994. Theodor Luts had perhaps more successful career in fimlmmaking in Finland than Estonia in the 1930's. Estonians and Finns speak languages that they can both understand. The Nordic Baltic Film Fund founded by Egmont (media group) is the major investor in the Nordic-Baltic film industry nowadays that has also started up the Baltic film school in Tallinn Estonia. [6] So it might be me since I've worked on both sides of the Baltic sea and am familiar with both film industries, it would make sense to make a Nordic Baltic task force unless anybody objects.--Termer (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already had two editors object to the idea and, as stated above, there's no support for it in the academic film literature. No one's contesting that there are some ties which exist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there aren't any academic film literature on the subject really since, do you really know any academic film literature published in English that would cover Cinema in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania as it's subject? the cinemas have been only or mostly referred to in connection with Soviet cinema only because the countries were part of Soviet Union once and therefore the subjects were touched as a part of a wider study -Soviet cinema. that's from where it all starts from. The only available study in English I'm aware of that briefly touches the history of Cinema in Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania is 'Culture and Customs of the Baltic States' by Kevin O'Connor in his 'Media and Cinema' chapter, and 'Estonian Animation' By Chris Robinson that's a comprehensive study of the subject. In case you know any other works published in English, please let me know. --Termer (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

were oriented mostly toward modernist European and especially Nordic art.'was a citation from Kevin O'Connor's book regarding the culture. It has staid so ever since. Just that no studies have been published in English regarding Baltic Cinema in general. --Termer (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the major books on Nordic cinema rarely - if ever - even mention any of the Baltic states or languages, for that matter. At all. That's including both pre-1940 and post-1991, and several of these books are recent or have had a recent revision. Nordic cinema, however, is a well-established topic of study, so I'm loathe to re-define it. Is there a good reason why Baltic cinema can't exist as an independent task force? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

separate Baltic and Nordic task forces are fine by me. I just didn't know that you want to keep the task forces based on academic studies, I understood it so that the task forces should be based on regional criteria. And cultural traditions perhaps. but since 2 editors have objected the idea, we better move on I guess. --Termer (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like we have a proposal, then? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lets make it happen. Please make a place available for sign ups. I guess the national wiki-project members take care of announcements for the proposed task force. --Termer (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll notify the national wiki-projects. I know Girolamo is currently busy with co-ordinator elections and other tasks, perhaps I can set up the Baltic task force page if he wants. Martintg (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hold on there. Let's find a group of interested editors to sign up for it first... When that happens, then let me know, and I'll be happy to take care of setting it up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a clear place within WikiProject Films that can be announced for sing ups, or else should people just drop by of this talk page? And in case a post--soviet task force can be started up with 0 participants, why do we need to have this complicated procedure for the Baltic task force?--Termer (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet, German, and Japanese task forces were all brought up at once on the project Talk space (and advertised to several of the national talk spaces), to gauge if there was interest. We got a handful of people pledging to join each, and unfortunately, when we got around to this one (and the German one) several months later, no one showed up to actually join. That's why there are zero; it wasn't a build-it-first attitude, contrary to current appearances. Usually, however, we do try to have a sign up (often through the WP:COUNCIL subpage), as in the case of Southeast Asia, for example. For the moment, however, I'm going to bed. I'll start working on the rest of this tomorrow. Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal makes sense, but the only problem I see is whether there are enough editors to sustian it. This is why I liked the idea of a combined taskforce. Personally I'd have accepted a single Russian taskforce from the 1890s to present. Out of all I'd be more interested in a Nordic task force though. However the problem with seperate nordic and baltic is that Finnish and Estonian cinema are indeed more related than Finland and Norway for example but overall Scandinavian cinema seems to have some form of identify which would mark it as seperate from the baltic states. The only problem we have here is Estonia but combining Nordic and Baltic if this is desired sounds reasonable. I have a feeling that however it is split or named most if not all of its contributors will only work on one country like Estonia or Denmark by Cactuswriter would be worked on and neglect the rest. I guess though that any move to try to focus on each cinema under a merged taskforce however it is made is a positive step to make. I hope it would encourage more editors from the relative wikirprojects to join forces and develop their cinemas. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the whole point of renaming/splitting/merging the taskforces, to arrive at a format that encourages people to join. Martintg (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this task force may be interested in commenting on the AFD for One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in a suggested Baltic cinema task force can sign up here. General comments are also requested. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute going on about the viewing numbers of the film. The http://www.kinokultura.com/plus/prokat2.html site claims 33.3 million viewers while the number gets deleted by a fan of Sofia Rotaru and replaced by a greater number based on an oral statement by Alexander Stefanovich, the director of the film. He has later admitted starting rumours on Alla Pugacheva selling 100 million records which he had invented himself. Therefore Stefanovich is a highly unreliable source for such figures. See Talk:Dusha for details. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost blanked. There are several similar pages Category:Russian Guild of Film Critics Awards, all of them should be deleted or preserved. Please decide.Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has created the article Yorick and Yurick, that appears to deal with Vladimir Vysotsky, Oleg Dahl, and Innokenty Smoktunovsky; their relationship to the character Yorick in Shakespeare's play Hamlet; and possibly some kind of connection with secret intelligence services. The article has several aspects that concern me, but mainly the problem is that I am failing to understand what it is actually about (in policyese, what its assertion of notability is); and while it does cite some sources, they are all in Russian so I am unable to determine whether they can be considered to verify the text. And the problem is compounded by the article's creator's limited grasp of English. As it stands I am going to end up nominating it for deletion, but I really hate doing that if there's a chance it's just my failure to understand. Especially as the editor has indicated they will be offline for several months soon, and thus will not be able to argue their case at AfD.

If anyone here is able to help, that would be much appreciated. Perhaps particularly if you speak Russian and can check the cited sources. Thanks in advance to anyone that can pitch in here! --Xover (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article has now been nominated for deletion. Interested editors can follow or participate on the articles entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorick and Yurick. --Xover (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merge the Cyrillic advice to one guideline
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the British Newspaper Archive if anyone would like me to search for anything there. I have been trawling through results up to 1929 so far, and while only a relatively small number of Soviet films were shown in Britain before WWII, those that were shown received quite a bit of coverage. There are also quite a few articles discussing the Soviet-controlled film industry and business alliances with Germany and Britain. The history of Soviet films being shown in Britain would make an interesting article in itself, with many classic films banned for several years as Soviet propaganda, but with various challenges and loopholes to allow them to be shown. --Michig (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have several newspaper sources from 1915 discussing this film, all stating that it was the first Russian film to be shown in England. It depicts conflict between the German forces and Russian civilians during World War I, which explains the British interest in it. Apart from these 1915 sources I can't find anything else online about the film. Does anyone know anything about it, e.g. whether it may be listed under a different title? It looks like a film we should have an article on, but it would be good to have more details. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]