Talk:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Russian language template note in 1st sentence

The consensus reasons for the note in the first sentence are discussed here. --Horeki (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Original layout was:

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn ( /soʊlʒəˈniːtsɨn/;[1] Russian: Алекса́ндр Иса́евич Солжени́цын, pronounced [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ɪˈsaɪvʲɪtɕ səlʐɨˈnʲitsɨn]; 11 December 1918 – 3 August 2008)[2]

This is a perfect example of secondary information interrupting the flow of primary information, and a perfect example of why phonetics and non-English spellings should be put down the page.

Because WP software puts the word "Note" in front of the numeral, I think it is an obstacle also (though not so great an obstacle). Why use "Notes"? Just because the facility is there does not mean it must be used. I have almost never seen any example where the "Note" facility was really needed. Simplicity is a goal of good communication, and putting the names in as references is simpler. It also saves time for the editor, which is important for anyone who puts up many new pages. I want my time to go on the difficult task of explaining scientific concepts. My editing style is tailored to that end, as well as producing a readable text.

The consensus issue is, for me, secondary. Rules have their place, but function is more important than anything! One could ask, about the old introductory sentence above, "Does it work?" The answer is NO!!. That is the real reason for making the change.

Anyway, I would suggest that you just let the issue turn over in your mind for a while. Often ideas need time and distance to ferment (bubble, bubble...)

On the general question of introductory sentences and paragraphs, look at leading newspapers and magazines. Look anywhere where there is a history of communicating with the general public. They always try to hit the reader between the eyes with their first words. That is because they want the reader to continue reading.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we please not go around removing IPA notations? How to say names like Solzhenitsyn is probably one of the few things I always want to know before I start reading about the topic. I can't read an article through properly if I don't know how to subvocalise the name of the topic. If you must move pronunciation to a footnote, so be it, but can we not remove it altogether? Osiris (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. not that any have actually been removed from this article; I was just going on what Mac posted about. Osiris (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never suggested removing pronunciation help. I have said that almost no-one understands the IPA notation, and that it is better to mimic the English pronunciation with standard letters. The little sound clip, where it exists, is fine. Personally, I remove secondary information to lower in the article, and recommend it to others. The information moved could be put in its own section. However, as I say, it is simpler to put it in as a reference, where the hover can quickly pick up the sense if needed. Contrast the first sentence of the English wiki article on Solzhenitsyn, which is a classic example of badly written English, clumsy and difficult to read. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I just assumed it was removed after comparing the bit you've quoted above with what's in there now (but I guess you've quoted that from the English version). I don't really have an opinion on whether to split the note from the references. I guess it could depend on whether there are any other footnotes for it to go with. If there were other footnotes scattered throughout the article, they could get lost in the references and it's neater to keep them separate, but if there is only one it doesn't make much sense to have it sitting on its own (and yes, there is the extra bit of mess in the opening). Osiris (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Just to clarify the issues as I understand them,
A. Macdonald-ross prefers the first sentence version from June. If others want to add any non-English information in the opening sentence, Macdonald-ross prefers to see it at the bottom of the page.
B. Gotanda agrees with the concept of interruption; however, Gotanda is not convinced that a note at the bottom of a page is helpful or best.
C. Does this fairly summarize the points of view?

• SEWP in June:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (11 December 1918 – 3 August 2008) was ....
• SEWP current: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (11 December 1918 – 3 August 2008) was ....
• SEWP alternative:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (11 December 1918 – 3 August 2008) was ....

• SEWP simplified STANDARD: Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (Russian: Алекса́ндр Иса́евич Солжени́цын (11 December 1918 – 3 August 2008) was ....

• ENWP STANDARD:Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (/soʊlʒəˈniːtsn/; Russian: Алекса́ндр Иса́евич Солжени́цын, ɐlʲɪˈksandr ɪˈsaɪvʲɪtɕ səlʐɨˈnʲitsɨn; 11 December 1918 – 3 August 2008) was ....

________

Notes

<references group="note">

References

With respect, I think I "get it"; but I continue to believe that a simplified version of the wiki-standard is best for the Asian articles in which I am willing to invest time and thought. At the same time, I'm trying to work with the suggestions Macdonald-ross and Gotanda have offered. Does this help sharpen the focus? --Horeki (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Placing

Just a thought which I should have had earlier. We have infoboxes! Why not use them for the kind of details which disrupt the flow of intro sentences? It is an option. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gotanda agrees with your general point-of-view. Please recall that Gotanda suggested "I really think infobox is the way to go. More work, yes, but it can be a "going forward from here with new articles, and slow fixes to old ones". Incremental work wins in the end, I think. Update: See Naguib Mahfouz and Muhammad Yunus."

IMO, the infobox and the navbox are good as supplements, but not as a substitute. IMO, this is a way to present information in a visual format, but it is not an alternative to the main text of an article.

I wonder if perhaps the infobox format at Sadae and Gyorin is anything like what you would like to see in this article about Solzhenitsyn? --Horeki (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does look neat. In fact all these examples are excellent and interesting. Thank you for showing them to me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying it out on Solzhenitsyn, I found the length of his full name made it clumsy to have both variants above the photo, so placed them under the photo in the 'born name' slot. Anyway, this is an alternative worth considering. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)