Talk:Anna Semenovich

Editing suggestions for Featured Article

(Pasted from my talk page) Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I thought I'd save it to: User:Dekkappai/Workspace‎ temporarily for your approval/rejection. Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Great idea, so we can discuss everything first, thanks. Please add your answers and comments to the specific sections. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Ref order

I know I haven't put the references (first name with full ref) in proper order. Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I did not quite understand this. Do you mean references should be cited as "John Miller (1996), Title" rather than "Miller, John (1996), Title"? It's the cite templates which put the names automatically into the right order if you provide the first and last parameters, and I think "Miller, John (1996), Title" is the commonly accepted rule to cite publications. Please tell me if I got you wrong. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

No-- I meant as in naming the first <ref name= "name"> and then the later citations as <ref name="name"/>. I rearranged the text so much I'm sure I jumbled up the references, but I saw no point in fixing up the order until we all decide what the shape of the text will be. Dekkappai 10:46, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, ok. It works fine if the name is referenced somewhere in the article, and it does not influence the reference function. In the beginning, I made sure that the first mentioning of a reference in the code contained the whole reference, but I skipped this as some articles grew, as I saw that it has no influence on the page. Or do you think it is important for a well-written article that it's also "clean behind the scenes"? I think there aren't many editors except us and another three or four who use the name parameter, and these are familiar with the text search function. Or am I wrong? Prophecy 13:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Right... I see the references are working correctly anyway. It seems like they used to not work right if they were done "out of order". Maybe I just imagined this, but since it's working fine, I guess this is nothing to worry about. Dekkappai 15:37, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Order of sections

The major change in the article, I think, was putting the biography foremost, and integrating most of her career into that, chronologically. (I know nothing about the woman, so if I've mis-arranged any of it, please fix it). Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

This was one of my very first articles, and as other articles did not have a specific order (or weren't just this long), I made one up for myself. With time, I wrote more articles, and I now see that I'll have to revise parts of my order; many of your suggestions make sense. At the beginning, I thought that the modelling work was the most important thing to be mentioned and what visitors expect to find first, so I moved this section to a prominent place every time. With the article on Anna Semenovich, I got into trouble, because I had to move all "non-modelling" content to the biography section. Now that we also have articles on persons who never performed as a model (photographers, fashion designers), this order does not make sense anymore. If something is part of a person's work, it should be mentioned along with the modelling work, I agree. Perhaps with the modelling work mentioned first. I'll go through it and adapt my "section skeleton file" first before adapting or rejecting anything in the article. I might come back to you with questions or points for discussion. Thanks for now. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Right-- the article looked to me to have a lot of good material, but to have presented it all in sub-sub-sub sections, and somewhat randomly. I attempted to shape it up, and put it together into something more like a narrative biography-- chronologically as much as I could determine. Dekkappai 10:48, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Names in italics

Stylistically-- I know we don't italicize Japanese scripts in English writing, so I assume the same goes for Cyrillic. If not, again, feel free to change it back. Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Well... The reason is that the first two articles on Russian persons I saw on Wikipedia wrote Russian names in italics. Now, after having a closer look on Wikipedia articles on Russians, I see that both ways exist, but the non-italic names clearly form the majority. Away from Wikipedia: I LOVE Russian italics, but you have a serious point: Japanese signs look terrible in italics, and I cannot find another sensible reason for Russian names to be italicised - so it seems to be better to convert them. Phew... I'll have to go through all my articles on Russian persons. :-) Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I was sticking my neck out on this one, because I know no Russian... I assume in Russian italics are used... I don't think I have ever seen them used in Korean or Japanese though, so that's a different matter... To me, as a non-Russian-speaking English-speaker, the italics made the Cyrillic more difficult to make out. But again, if this is standard, feel free to use them-- although I would still recommend using them only for titles, not for names of individuals. (By the way, when a stylistic change is made which affects my articles-- the "Reference" section at the bottom for instance-- I don't think it's important enough to devote time to making that change to every article... I make the changes as I come across them in normal editing.) Dekkappai 10:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

What standard? :-) We have no defined standards on Boobpedia so far - except for the references at the bottom of the article (wow, our first consensus!). It's astonishing how you felt when you saw the italics - for me it signalised: Here comes something different, an explication in another language - for you it was just the opposite. But as said, the way to use italics only for titles and such seems to be consistent, and I have nothing against it. For me it integrates the Cyrillic letters even more into the text, but it solves the Japanese dilemma. Prophecy 13:40, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

English first, then cyrillic

Also, I believe the English should come first, with the Cyrillic in parentheses. Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

You are talking about film, television and music album titles, aren't you? Generally, I agree with you, but there's a problem: As for photographer names, I did it exactly like this, because there are more or less official rules for transliterating cyrillic letters into English. A newspaper like Your Day may be translated without problems too, but as for the film and music album titles - most of them were never published outside Russia, so I provided the original title first and added the translation (only my own attempt) in parentheses. I think this is more reasonable in this case: Transliterate all proper names and abbreviations, but mention film titles which don't have an English title with the original title first and then the translation. I have to admit that I did not notice that I did it, because I can read Russian. But I wouldn't be astonished to see the same technique for a Japanese film. But if I do so, I would have to change the filmography to this style too to be consistent, because I noticed that I mentionend the English (inofficial, hand-translated) title first there. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I run across the exact same situation in Japanese. Lately there has been a trend towards using English titles in the videos, and I use them, no matter how bad the English is :-) But more usually, I have to give a rough translation, and I don't like doing this because it makes it sound like an "official" translation... Still, I think I do put the English first, just because I assume most readers will not be able to read any Japanese at all, and they can more easily skip over the Japanese text if it is second, in parentheses. (The case of Cyrillic is a little different though, in that it is closely related to our Roman alphabet, so us English-speakers can work out the meanings, sometimes, and have a bit of a fun challenge in doing so :) Dekkappai 10:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Lesson one: Деккаппай (Dekkappai). :-) Prophecy 13:43, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Name explication

We might also think about cutting out a lot of the Cyrillic-- are transliterations for the names of individuals necessary? Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

You are definitively right, I already thought about shortening the name explication section before. Explications of a name may still be interesting if they become the topic of discussions (like for the "Semen" in "Semenovich", I saw that on a discussion board). But I think it is still very important to provide the transliterations and variations of those names. This may not be obvious at first, but try to start looking for information about her on the net - you definitively need the transliterations and variations to find stuff about her. Only writing one English transliteration does not show all the other sources in Google, for example. Besides, English speakers usually do not know that Anna, Anya, Anyuta and Annushka are exactly the same for a Russian and can be used instead. (By the way: Did you know that Sasha is only a diminutive form for Alexander? Every pop music magazine will call a pop star named Alexander by Sasha :-) ). Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Again, I came across this same thing in my work on Japanese subjects... When I first started (at Wiki), I would provide the Japanese for every little thing I possibly could... I've come to think now though, that for the average English-speaker, just the most important things need the original characters. The subject's name, certainly. Also titles to films-- especially if I'm making my own translations. (If we're talking about Kurosawa films, for example, providing the original Japanese would be much less necessary, since they all have standard English translations.) I found your explanation of her name both interesting and educational, so I see no reason to remove that :-) (I do not doubt anything in the section, but some sourcing might be in order so it looks somewhat less like "original research") Dekkappai 11:03, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Good point. I'll try to find some sources about Russian names. However, I have much more problems with the section about her bust being real or not - that is even more original research; it was me who draw the conclusions from the facts, because nobody else did. :-( Prophecy 13:46, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Last name instead of first name

I noticed that you replaced "Anna" by "Semenovich". I second that, I already did it for Katja Ehrhardt, a later article. I was not sure at the beginning when I started writing articles at Boobpedia, because everyone here called the performers by their first names. But we don't know them personally, and an encyclopedia is definitely not "familiar" with their subjects. I'll use only last names in future articles, too, but won't change existing ones written by others - might lead to edit wars. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Right... this is one of the changes I'm less sure about myself. It depends on how Boobpedia wants to look at itself, as more a straight encyclopedia, or as more a fan site. I know with many of my favorite models, I think of them with the first name, but I still try to use the more encyclopedic last name in the articles. (I find myself accidentally slipping in first names though.) Dekkappai 11:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Bold and italics

I cut down on a lot of the bolding and italicizing. Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll have to go through it. As for the italics for the Russian names, I agree. If bold names are a variant the subject of the article may be called by, I prefer to use the bold style. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Lists to the end of the article

I put the lists of work-- photographers appeared with, TV and film appearances, after the body of the text [...] Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Hm... I'll have to think about that again. Is this a common practice on Wikipedia? I thought that it would be better to read some excerpts of her film career, but then have the whole list at one place, not at two places in the article. The pictures were chosen to fit into the sections too, now they are a bit difficult to assign to the text, but that maybe a little bit of layout work. I'll look at this. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

First-to-last for lists

[...] and in first-to-last order... Dekkappai 18:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I know that you don't like that we cite Wikipedia rules all the time, but they might help. I think I remember having read that short lists with very recent events can have last-to-first oder, but that lists in general should have the first-to-last order. Was there a specific reason for you to chose first-to-last? I think I'll use first-to-last in future lists too, makes it easier and more consistent - once and for all. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

First-to-last is standard at Wikipedia, and I definitely agree with that. (I have no idea why IMDb does it in reverse.) About their making exceptions for living performers-- I see no point in this... The reason I think first-to-last is more appropriate is that we are writing biographies, encyclopedic articles, which present their information in a chronological order. To go through the subject's life chronologically-- birth to career-- and then to have the list of works in reverse order seems contradictory to me. I do agree with going over her work in the body of the text, but when I saw it done as something like a bulleted list, I moved it to the "works" section... I think both are fine together-- the discussion in the article, and the list at the end-- but that the text does need to read like a narrative, otherwise it interrupts the flow of the article, I think. Dekkappai 11:09, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for all your changes, I might ask you to go through the article again when I adopted or rejected your suggestions. Prophecy 06:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

No problem-- great work, and I hope it gets on the mainpage! Dekkappai 11:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I think that the article has 2 very, very minor issues which can seem either too nonsignificant or dubious. First, "Обреченная стать звездой" literally means "Doomed to become a star" or so, which, I think, sounds or looks just awkward. And, second, Russian size 5 is actually a F cup (<A is 0, B is 1, C is 2, etc.). Feel free to approve or reject that. --NOYDB (talk | edits) 11:44, 24 February 2015 (EST)

I don't think her breasts are natural, sure they move a little, but they're WAAAY too firm to be real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMbrxtpJhI - USER2072