Talk:The Passion According to Andrei

January 2019 Page split of similar Articles

(copied in from a discussion on my Talk Page with the author of this article [1])

The reliable sources for the film article of The Passion According to Andrei appear to justify it as a separate article. The two films were released as separate dvds with separate titles and separate chapter heading added throughout the film. These two films are treated as two separate films by the editorial board for The Criterion Collection, and they have been released by them under separate dvd titles. The reliable sources which I have added include this one [2], and many others exist, including the discussion of Martin Scorsese who apparently took great risks and efforts to get the 1966 film out of Russia into the USA, since many copies of the 1969 film already existed. If you have a reliable source article indicating that the editorial board of The Criterion Collection have committed a copyright violation against the laws of either the USA or Britain then please let me know by suitable discussion on the Talk page with your reliable sources against the editorial board of The Criterion Collection or similar cites. The article is restored based on The Criterion Collection reliable source being added as a reliable source to the article. CodexJustin (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: The problem is that the article is screening on the WP page curation process as being a near duplicate of the other large article, which is a problem. Instead of duplication of the other article, reduce your article down in size (just put links to the bigger article under various sections that are duplicate) to focus on the specific parts of your article that are different (or else, add your article as a section under the other article). Otherwise, it will have to be redirected again. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have considered that very seriously. One difficulty is that the single article version, if left as a single article at Wikipedia, is that there are many errors in it because it confuses the two versions of the film. This has caused ambiguous editing to the film article over time since most Wikipedia editors do not know the details of the two separate films as well as Martin Scorsese. By separating these two films, it has made it easier for other editors to start to weed out the ambiguities inherent in the editing. When the two articles go through an enjambment into a single article, then editors seem to force edits into the article based on their own preferences. (You can see the fine job done by editor Vlad to this effect of resolving ambiguities in the recent edit history, after the two film articles were separated). By separating the articles, even with the similarities, it allows other editors to put their edits into the correct article for the current film, and not to place them into the incorrect film because of there not being a separate article for each of the two separate films. If you have such edits in mind for you to help improve either one or both of these articles it would be nice for you to add them into the article and help to clear up this long standing issue of ambiguities in editing concerning the two separate films. CodexJustin (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 Page split of similar Articles

CodexJustin. Sorry for the delay as I meant to come back to you on this. This Talk Page is the best place to discuss this issue. As per our previous discussion (I have pasted in above), these two large articles are almost identical (over 98%), with very minor differences, as shown by the Wikipedia article comparison tool:

• Comparison of The Passion According to Andrei and Andrei Rublev (film).

In addition, the other WP article, Andrei Rublev (film) is a GA rated article, whereas The Passion According to Andrei is not rated.

We can confine the The Passion According to Andrei article to the differences from Andrei Rublev (film), OR, we can create a new section in Andrei Rublev (film), highlighting the small differences. Keeping two large articles with very small differences between them, and particularly when one is GA rated, is not sustainable and is going to lead to an WP:AfD (and could probably be fast-tracked as an WP:A10) on The Passion According to Andrei? Hope that makes sense. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• @CodexJustin: The small number of differences between this article and the main GA-rated article are almost all unreferenced, and therefore this is likely going to have to go to AfD unless you can at least resolve this. Pinging the most recent editors on the Andrei Rublev article, @ManKnowsInfinity: and AndrewOne, who might be able to help us. Britishfinance (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me. WP:FILMPLOT reads, "The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced." A separate article on The Passion According to Andrei is unwarranted, because it is currently too similar to the page Andrei Rublev (film) (and would likely remain too similar). I prefer the mere addition of a new section to Andrei Rublev (film). AndrewOne (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for that which is very helpful. I am going to re-paste your comment to the AfD talk page of this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Passion According to Andrei, for others to read. Thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• That note from WP:Filmplot only works for films released under the same name. In this case, the two separate films were released as separate films with separate titles in different production years. The 1966 film was banned in Soviet Russia and it was illegal to show this film thereafter in Soviet Russia. The other separate film in 1969 was released as legal to circulate in Soviet Russia thereafter. The editorial board of The Criterion Collection has now released these as two separate films and the two separate articles on Wikipedia are useful and based on a reliable source which is the editorial board of The Criterion Collection. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @CodexJustin: @AndrewOne: WP does not decide notability based on the Criterion Collection. WP is not a catalogue or directory of films (e.g. WP:NOTADIRECTORY). For a film to have its own WP article, it must be independently notable. Almost every reference for this film (even the ones titled The Passion According to Andrei), turn out to be for the Andrei Rublev film. Apart from passing references to the original working title of The Passion According to Andrei, there is no significant independent WP:RS reference that even gives the separate plot of your article (underlying its lack of independent notability), to stop your edits being WP:OR; and which according to your own small edits, is almost identical anyway to the Andrei Rublev film. That is why what AndrewOne makes sense and is in line with WP:PAG. Britishfinance (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Criterion Collection is a reliable source for information on hundreds of films which they have released with useful liner notes and included booklets of critical essays. They are a standard reliable source of information used throughout Wikipedia for film articles. CodexJustin (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The Yellow Pages (and many directories) are RS, but being listed in them does not mean notability. The Passion According to Andrei doesn't even get listed in Rotten Tomatoes (although Andrei Rublev does [3]). This is a non-notable working title of a more famous film and is therefore a Redirect to Andrei Rubliv. Britishfinance (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(note - let's continue the rest of this on the AfD Page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Passion According to Andrei; no need to repost these things twice. Britishfinance (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC))

March 2019 Page split of similar Articles

(copying this from my talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC))

No hoax, and you have a full reply on your Talk page. These are two separate films according to the review board at the Criterion Collection. Use the correct template if you are genuinely looking for article improvements. Please note that you have no support for your reading of this on the Talk page even though you have listed it for several weeks. It appears that you have not seen both of these films. You should make clear on the Talk page whether you have seen the two separately released film or it you have not seen them. Reverting to the old format of one article perpetuates the long standing problem at Wikipedia for this article of editors forcing edits into the article wrongly and without discrimination as to these two separate films. The one was fully censored in 1966, while the other was released in 1969 in Soviet Russia. CodexJustin (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: This article is a duplicate of another article with only tiny differences that are all unreferenced. The duplication is a problem and is therefore tagged accordingly. However, the lack of any referencing for these tiny differences (and the rejection of the editors on main article to having these items merged, means that this could be a hoax or false). You need to give references to at least support your thesis - there are none presented. However, even if you provide these references, it is still likely that without explanation, that this article will end up on AfD to force a merge/redirect. I have been patient, but you are not helping me to support the reason why a massive duplication of a large article exists on WP for a few tiny unreferenced differences? The lack of interest by other editors demonstrates that they ignore this article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Show us some references here on this Talk Page (or in the article) that supports your edits to this article and at least then we can take off the hoax tag? Even paste them in as URLs so that I can check them for you and at least validate what you have done? Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(copying this from my talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC))

You appear to be edit warring on a film which you have not seen. Please make plain if you have one of the other of these 2 films. Your request for comments on the Talk page has been ignored by other editors because you appear not to have seen the film. The article have already been reviewed as a satisfactory article by Wikipedia. Please stop edit warring as you have no support on the Talk page for this. You have been informed at least 3 times that the editorial board at the Criterion Collection has released these as two separate films with different run times and different release dates. The lack of interest from other editors indicates that you have no support for tag bombing the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems this will have to progress to AfD. Author has created an article which is effectively an identical copy of a very large (and GA-rated) WP article on a Russian film but with only a few small extra edits. Not only do we have a duplication issue (over 97% identical), but we also have the fact that he won't even supply references for these edits, so it could be a hoax (or POV) etc. Britishfinance (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comments and actions here appear to be based on your never having seen either one of the two films being discussed. CodexJustin (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)