Wikipedia talk:Elements of Style improvement project

Validity of this project

Is this really a valid Wiki Fixup Project? They are mainly about fixing the infrastructure of wiki: stub sorting and double redirects. The other projects are to do with highlighting missing or woefully short articles. This seems to be the imposing one person's preferred style across Wiki. I know that one person's style is a broadly agreed on, respected and used style but I notice some of the first words of the article are "an American English writing style guide". I welcome the correction of misused words which are mentioned in such works and the elimination of prolixity, the current main thrust of the project, is usually a good idea. But to make this into a project where people are likely to pop in, replace a couple of words with one, probably without reading the whole article, seems to me to be disruptive to articles. When obvious grammar and spelling problems are improved, there is no problem but introducing preferred grammar, style or variant spelling without contribution to material detail should be resisted. MeltBanana 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the idea of replacing common but tedious phrases with more concise ones is an excellent one. There's no particular reason why the project should rely on Strunk and White alone. I think Wikipedians should feel free to add and remove suggestions from the list as they please, and discuss their choices as needed. The general rule on article pages is to keep whatever local dialect (American, British, Australian, etc.) is dominant there. I'm sure we can come up with many suggestions for improvement that operate within a single dialect, or are dialect-neutral. It's not necessarily a good idea to blindly convert, say, American phrases to British ones, because then articles will end up as a mishmash. But where there are common phrases in a particular dialect that are confusing to readers who speak another, it might be worthwhile to use this page to suggest a good global replacement. -- Beland 02:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Plaudits for the attempt but I think that meltbanana's objections are valid and maybe the ethos of the project should be re-evaluated before we inadvertantly decrease the quality of the articles with a reasonably narrow remit of stylistic improvement? SeanMack 13:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the article cites The Elements of Style, which a professor of mine (Geoffrey Parker (historian)) recommended to me! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Update delays

Note that Google's search index is probably not updated as frequently as we might like, so "fixed" pages will keep showing up as "needing fixing." It might be better to operate off a list of pages that need fixing, and cross them off as they are completed. -- Beland 02:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I should add that by using a database dump instead of a search engine, more precise matching parameters could be specified, which could reduce the number of false positives. -- Beland 02:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not

"Others, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, consider almost all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether they result in immediate harm to their followers." doesn't read right. I don't believe it's acceptable to generally replace "whether or not" with "whether".--Prosfilaes 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that. In many cases it is incorrect to change "whether or not" to just "whether". Check out this edit. Dv82matt 09:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that 'prior to' should be replaced with 'before', or the best-parsing equivalent. I'd like to think that we could push the phrase into obsolescence. mat_x 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Killing this project

Is a revert battle really the most constructive way to run a project? It has certainly put me off of it. There have been at least two requests to discuss the U.S. English concern that have been ignored. I'm not persuaded that is the primary objection to exalting Strunk & White as the unimpeachable pinnacle of style, but it does seem to have exposed the project's bias (as if the name weren't enough). Beland's approach above seems much more sensible. Squib 19:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I also question the validity of this project, surely time could be spent doing something much more constructive than this. I don't think William Strunk ever intended his ideas to be used in this way, he meant them as rules to be applied when writing an article. I have looked through many of the sentences turned up in google searches on the project page and in many cases just replacing phrases en mass would lose the intended meaning of many of them and require rewriting of whole paragraphs. Arniep 12:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that and being that

"seeing that" and its barbaric cousin "being that" can generally be replaced by "since". --(an unlogged-in User:Angr at 09:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Great Idea

In general this is a great idea. The suggested improvements will improve most articles. It's little different than a human editor going through your article with a red pen. There are certain well established readability improvements applicable to most cases. This does not change the writer's original intent, nor infringe on his creativity.

Writers tend to be too wordy. Conciseness promotes good clear writing. This is especially appropriate in reference materials; Wikipedia isn't a novel.

Ideally Elements of Style should be applied by the writer as the article is composed. However it's possible to edit/replace specific phrases if done carefully.

In addition to those already stated, here's one more:

"There is no doubt but that" -> replace with "no doubt", or "doubtless" Joema 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

needs better list

I removed this from Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects as it needs a better list. The Google index is rarely updated and it isn't easy to fix the problem. r3m0t ^talk 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Owing to the fact that

Replace with the simple Because? In general, Yes, but the objection really is to the the fact that part. The impression is given that owing to is not a useful and precise phrase. I'd say the real problem is with the causative use of Due to.--shtove 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "due to the fact that" is seen more often than "owing to the fact that", and "due" is seen far too often without an accompanying form of to be, where "owing to" would be more appropriate. To illustrate: "the team lost due to injuries" should be "the team's loss was due to injuries", "the team lost owing to injuries", or "the team lost because of injuries". In almost every case, "because" is the simpler way to restate any phrase which uses "due to" or "owing to", irrespective of the presence of the bureaucratese "fact that". —LX 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to remember the exact rules for "due to" so have just changed it to because in general. I find this makes the writing more simple and gutty anyhow. Also, actually creating acceptible uses of "due to" often forces the use of nominalizations and non-human actors. A Red Schoolhouse no-no. For instance, above we have "the loss" being the subject instead of the team losing.  ;)

database dump search

I could search the database dump for these phrases, that is if this project is still active? Martin 13:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Irritating Style

I'm not sure where to put this so I'm putting it here. I've read numerous articles and been very frustrated with a common practice of linking basic terms to wiki articles, whereas it would be proper to link the more complex subject at hand.

Here's an example:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a [[UFO]] doomsday [[cult]] and their increased [[proselytization]] after the leader's prophecy failed.

UFO, cult, and proselytization are linked. Why should those terms be linked? I can understand linking proselytization as it's a lesser known term, however in this context I would expect a link to the specific cult mentioned. I could care less to know all about UFO's or cults in general. I'm reading about a psychology subject here... not Art Bell.

I haven't compiled a list so I don't have more examples, but I've seen this in many pages from the main page to obscure pages.

Here's some made-up examples to explain my point:

Ex. 1

 ... in the Library of Congress ...

should be

 ... in the Library of Congress ...

because the reader is not looking up "libraries" or "Congress," but the "Library of Congress."

Ex. 2

 ... the Ford escort was discontinued ...

should be

 ... the Ford escort was discontinued ...

Again.. This is HIGHLY irritating. You should try emphasize that this is bad style or if you have done so, make it more clear.

--216.21.215.250 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

rotten english full of typos

just googled into the Railroad switch

so I have signed in as a newbie

the text reads like a machine translation of standard russian engineerign work or encyclopedia

should the edits be based on UK or USA terminology

in a way it would be a pity to clean it up :-)

Hugh W

"Since" Should Be "Because"

"being that" --> replace with "since"

should read

"being that" --> replace with "because"

"Since" is a measurement of time, such as, "I haven't seen him since Sunday."

"Because" is a reason why, such as, "I haven't seen him because he's been busy with work."

Someone who incorrectly uses the phrase "being that," such as "I haven't seen him being that he's been busy with work" means "because" he's been busy with work.

Since is also a conjunction indicating cause, with roughly the same meaning as "because". See http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/S0422100.html under Conjunction, 3. Angr 11:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that....

It is worth noting that "it is worth noting that" can safely be removed. If something is not worth noting, you do not note it - so it's quite superfluous. I note from google that Wikipedia has around 700 instances of "it is worth noting that". Should they not all be removed? jguk 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, it is woth noting that some ideas need to be highlighted within a text. On the other hand, I would hope that the entire content of a text is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halbuquerque (talk • contribs) 12:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, except when used inside a sourced quotation, "it is worth noting that" and any similar construction in articles would be a direct violation of Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV by telling the reader that Wikipedia as an authoritative voice has determined that this fact in particular is important. It's a forbidden form of value judgement and viewpoint-pushing. It also violates the WP:Manual of Style in being a direct address to the reader, as between a one friend and another. Even when it isn't a NPOV problem, it is only permissible for cross-references, which are italicized as WP:SELFREFs, e.g. "(see also Another article)". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"due to the fact that"

Couldn't this phrase be replaced with "since" or "because" or "due"? There's lots of occurances.

This page agrees. However, it does not give an alternative for this particular phrase.

In especial the expression the fact that should be revised out of every sentence in which it occurs. 81.227.114.40 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many instances where longer phrases, containing redundant words, are better than the corresponding shorter versions. Often the choice by an expert writer depends on subtle differences in meaning. Moreover, the word flow is different. Apparently redundant words can also make sense if you want to make a sentence longer to get a nice alternation of sentence lengths. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good project, but Strunk & White is a dangerous book

Please be careful when using The Elements of Style. This is an old-school prescriptivist book of the type where the authors didn't find it necessary to do any scientific work on actual language to base their rules on. It contains good advice, some reasonable advice that is more a matter of personal preferences, and some advice that is so outrageously bad that they don't even follow it in the same paragraph. A much more scientific work, and much more in the (open, rather than authoritarian) spirit of the wiki, is Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage.

As an example, they say "use the active voice", although they realise that it would be insane to prohibit passive voice completely (as some prescriptivists do). They continue: "Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is or could be heard." (My italics.)

Another example for advice that is plain wrong, and dangerous in the context of this project, is their prohibition of singular "they". [1]

Following Strunk & White blindly can lead to unnecessary tension when editors replace good prose by other good prose, or even by bad prose. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Following Strunk and White will improve most writers about 99-44/100% more than hurting them. Yes, it is not holy writ tho. "Dangerous" is way overkill.

While "dangerous" is hyperbolic (as is "overkill" - it implies wholesale slaughter), the point is valid. EoS is an extremely prescriptivist work, is outdated, and is full of a lot of nonsense as well as a lot of good advice. The general idea behind this page, of grammatical and stylistic cleanup, is a good one, but it can't reasonably be limited to a single reference work, especially one that is both heavily slanted to one side of the Atlantic, and obsolete. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"former"

I see there is a little bit of debate about whether to use "former" as "former American senator" or "American former senator". I could not find a WP style guide that shows our preference, if any. Does anyone know if strunk & white has a guideline on this, and would we follow its lead?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No guideline is needed on this other than WP:COMMON, I would think. I've never seen it raised before, anyway. If you are finding a lot of cases of this sort of misuse of "former" (and "prospective", and similar temporal modifiers), then maybe raise it at WT:MOS. The obvious answer is that the correct usage is for "former" to come last in any string of adjectives if it only modifies the noun. Where this can lead to awkwardness, as in this case, rewrite to avoid: "American politician, formerly a United States Senator" or whatever. These things may need rewording on a case-by-case basis. Here, it's important to note that there is no such thing as the "American Senate" ergo no such title as "American Senator"; meanwhile "Senator", which is capitalized when used as a title for a specific person like this, is ambiguous since the U.S. states have State Senators, too). NB: A case where it would not come last would be something like "Australian former professional female impersonator", since "former" here is describing the unified concept "professional female impersonator", effectively an unhyphenated compound noun, and there's no such thing as a "professional former [anything]", meanwhile unless the subject renounced citizenship when retiring, the "former" cannot logically apply to "Australian", though it could be changed to "from Australia" and moved to after "impersonator" with no ill effect. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)