Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko

Alexandr vs. Olexandr

It is officially one of the lamest wars ever. (Igny 15:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

I have restored the traditional English spelling considering that it is the most common[1][2]. Reginmund 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored again. Please note that all of the cited references use "Alexander", and even the CIUS uses "Alexander" in book titles, and much of the time in journal articles[3] (cf their Dovzhenko special issue)[4]. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 13:40 Z

I have added "Alexander" as the usual English spelling, and I hope no one feels compelled to delete it. (I won't bother trying to do anything about this, but "Olexandr" is a ridiculous spelling: it is neither traditional nor accurate. If you're going to give the Ukrainian form in English, it should be a straight transliteration, Oleksandr.) Languagehat (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, although I don't see how x in Olexandr differ from ks in Oleksandr (when you pronounce it in English, it's exactly the same) --Rkononenko (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no reason for it. It doesn't represent the Ukrainian spelling, and it doesn't represent a traditional form like Alexander. It just looks silly. Furthermore, very few people would look for the name under that spelling (since it's not generally used), and it makes sense to have Wikipedia articles under commonly used spellings. It's not that big a deal, since of course if you put in the more common Oleksandr you'll get redirected to the article, but I thought I'd vent about it anyway. Languagehat (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth date problem

September 11 [O.S. August 29] 1894.

See the problem here? There was a 12-day difference between the calendars in the 19th century. But August 29 to September 11 is 13 days.

So, either it's

• September 11 [O.S. August 30] 1894 or
• September 10 [O.S. August 29] 1894.

What's it to be, and why? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Russian and Ukrainian articles both have 29 August/10 September, so I'm gonna trust them and change this one accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

the name should be Oleksandr Dovzhenko

Simply put it -> the name is Oleksandr, not Aleksanr. Proper nouns (including names of people) are not translated, but rat$her transliterated, so for instance Schweinsteiger (a German name) is not Pigrider in English. --Rkononenko (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The name follows its acceptable usage in English (please see Encyclopedia Britannica, American heritage Dictionary etc.). Jsqqq777 (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Old encyclopedias were written when there was still such a country as the USSR on world's map. USSR was multicultural, but Russian was predominant and so very often foreigners took russian spelling as the correct one. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia and it doesn't have to look at what mistakes were done in Dovzhenko's article in Encyclopedia Britannica, American heritage Dictionary or any other one. --Rkononenko (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia content is based on sources, not logical arguments. Jsqqq777 (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the truth is that Oleksandr Dovzhenko is Ukrainian (who happned to work during the soviet era, but he is still a Ukrainian director). His name is Oleksandr and it has to be transliterated that way. --Rkononenko (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

He could be Ukrainian, Russian or Martian. The fact is that the name follows its acceptable usage in English (please see Encyclopedia Britannica, American heritage Dictionary etc.). Jsqqq777 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jsqqq777 "Wikipedia content is based on sources, not logical arguments." I hope you realize how bizarre that sounds :) Nonetheless here's a source for ya, http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CD%5CO%5CDovzhenkoOleksander.htm Berehinia (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0235590/ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aleksandr-Dovzhenko https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/film-and-television-biographies/alexander-dovzhenko http://rayuzwyshyn.net/dovzhenko/Introduction.htm https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Dovzhenko-Life-Soviet-Film/dp/0851709273 http://sensesofcinema.com/2018/great-directors/dovzhenko-alexander/ And many, many others. General English usage seems to be Alexander Dovzhenko. --Khajidha (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge; proposal withdrawn due to article being fleshed out. Holdek (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose that Zvenigora be merged into Alexander Dovzhenko. I think that the content in the Zvenigora article can easily be explained in the context of Alexander Dovzhenko, and the Alexander Dovzhenko article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Zvenigora will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Holdek (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I do not see any reasons to merge, the film is clearly notable as a standalone article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is a single paragraph that has not been developed beyond a stub in seven years. It has been tagged as not citing any sources for two years. What is so notable about it? Holdek (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It already has a RS (the last one), and if you look for sources you find some. Merging obviously notable articles instead of doing the homework properly is not really a good way of building up Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Until the article is demonstrated as notable, I think it should be merged. If an editor finds more sources and wants to expand it, then it can be split off again in the future. But like I wrote, it's been this way for several years now. Holdek (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why I should argue with you endlessly, just to note for the third time that the notability is currently demonstrated in the text of the article (and it was already demonstrated, not by me, prior to this discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What is your evidence of notability? Holdek (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not MY evidence, this is what WP:N says. The fourth reference in the article, as I am now mentioning for the fourth time, is a reliable source devoted to the subject of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not cited in the article, and nothing has been for two years. Holdek (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. WP:N does not require that the RS is even in the article, and it certainly does not require an online citation. May be you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you proceed with this activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not required, but it seems best that it be merged with an article that is sourced (and could also incorporate a one-paragraph stub that hasn't evolved in several years). Please read the following before continuing this discussion: "Discuss the merger proposal on the destination article's talk page; make sure to follow proper decorum and standard talk page guidelines, which includes staying focused on the content, not on the involved editors, using threaded discussion formatting, not biting newcomers, and being clear and concise." (Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing a merger) Holdek (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let us conclude this discussion by stating that yo9ur merging proposal is counter to the policies. I am fine with the template hanging in the article for one more week. If you want to improve the article, please go ahead. Merging is not a way to improve the article, quite the opposite. It is a way to deteriorate Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. Let's revisit this in one week. Holdek (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, if the article is sufficiently improved by you or someone else before then, I will withdraw the proposal. Holdek (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.