Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
I have removed the wiki-link to Monkey see monkey do twice. I have removed them because the linked article is not about further information on this article or an elaboration on: "mimic the structures of other articles". If you absolutely want to wiki-link this I would suggest Imitation over Monkey see, monkey do, as it better explains what is meant by the phrase. On a side note if it's the monkey you like there's a picture of a monkey on the Imitation article :) - Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 13:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, look, I don't want to make a huge fuzz over this either. How about this: If you are truly convinced that the link not only doesn't add anything to the essay (which imho it definitely does) and find that the link actually harms the essay, then I won't insist on it. But I'd really like to hear a plausible reasoning on how exactly the link harms the essay. -- 78.34.252.223 ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I cited the last guideline only to help explain my point, since you didn't seem to understand, I even said that I knew it's not policy. As for being outnumbered it's you and me (I think) no one else has put in any other input. In my first reply, I conceded that the essay does resemble 'Monkey See, Monkey Do', I offered up a compromise in my last reply and now have incivility returned. - Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this page represents general practice any longer, or where it is headed. It's become a norm here that some identifier of the topic is bolded in the lead, since WP content can be reused in any way within the GFDL/CC licensing terms, including without the article title. This means we need to think more clearly about what names we give to articles, and how to write leads, not that we should abandon boldfacing any time a proper name isn't involved. While some of this essay remains pertinent, especially some of the clearer examples of rather lame boldfacing, parts of it are clearly obsolete.
A clear example would be Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, one of the "don't boldface" cases used in this essay. If you go to the article, as of this writing, you'll see that the lead begins with "The effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans have been long-lasting. As the center of Katrina passed South-east of New Orleans on August 29, 2005, winds ..." This is perfectly acceptable and downright normal at Wikipedia, as of February 2012 [update]. If the article had been badly titled, to make a lead look stupid when written this way, e.g. New Orleans effects of Hurricane Katrina, the article would need to be moved, rather than the capitalization convention abandoned. This probably means that the other "smoking gun" examples in the essay should probably be renamed or have their leads tweaked. The fact that a convention can sometimes require some thought in its application doesn't mean it should be abandoned. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have spent much time editing, and I hope improving the article on Soil. Recently someone edited the article to eliminate what that editor felt was excessive use of bold outside of WP guidelines. I understand how distracting it might be to find an excessive use of bold within an article, but I used bold in an attempt to improve the readability.
I don't know about you, but I have the attention span of a gnat. Five seconds into the reading of a paragraph my attention has slipped towards thoughts of Lady Gaga (love that name). I find the use of bold enhances my retention greatly. In way of example, I ask you to read the section "Soil forming factors" and make note of how the use of bold to connect the ideas to be expanded upon listed in bold in the introducing paragraph of that section enhances the retention of the information.
I would hate to see the guidelines expanded to allow the total free use of bold as it would likely be abused, but in the case of its use to highlight key ideas that are later expanded I might suggest that WP guidelines should be enlarged a bit.
Honestly, I'm just writing this because I want someone to go read the article. Zedshort ( talk) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is described as "awkward phrasing":
The Selarang Barracks Incident, also known as the Barrack Square Incident, was an incident on ...
I'm not sure what "awkward phrasing" is supposed to mean; I don't find anything award about the example. Indeed, Selarang Barracks incident is currently classified as a good article and begins:
The Selarang Barracks incident also known as the Barrack Square incident or the Selarang Square Squeeze, ...
so the only point of contention would be the capitalization of "Incident", which has nothing to do with superfluous bolding. Perhaps the editor who used it as an example is under the impression that the incident is one of those "that don't necessarily have their own names"? It would appear from the lede that in fact there are three different recognised names.
I also note that no "correct" text is provided for the "incorrect" January 31 2007 Boston bomb scare and electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker ledes; the former now redirects to 2007 Boston Mooninite panic (which is bolded) and the latter to electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, which is not bolded but has wiklilinks in the lede text. jnestorius( talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Selarang Barracks incident [...] was an event during the World War II started on 30 August 1942" says nothing about the nature of an event, and leaves ambiguity as to whether the WWII started in 1942. As for electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, wikilinks are expressly permitted in the lede text – what is not permitted are bolded wikilinks.
@
Deeday-UK: You said "there's nothing wrong with the previous version..."
I will have to disagree with your nothing wrong comment. The second sentence could have some work. I'm reading along, and I see: "That is, how not to awkwardly, superfluously cram..."
that is better in a more direct "That is, how to avoid awkwardly, superfluously cramming..."
. And then: "...an article's title in bold into its first sentence,..."
works okay, if the underlying structure is desirable to preserve, leaving "producing clumsy phrasing and circular definitions such as the above one."
, which leaves a sense of unease because what the reader actually wants to avoid is "producing clumsy phrasing and circular definitions such as the above one."
, where the avoidance of awkwardly, superfluously cramming an article's title in bold into its first sentence
is the means for this goal.
I suspect the redundancy triplet is what you wanted to preserve, but for me, it doesn't really drive the point home beyond the redundancy of the first sentence.
As for the second paragraph edit, "exist" is much more vague than "were chosen", so that's why I opted for that phrasing, and have reinstated that phrasing; the structure does not "exist" as an independent immortal entity, but was chosen by someone at some point, which is important to keep in mind for driving home the point this essay is conveying.
Therefore, I have made a simply mechanical edit that preserves the underlying structure.
I urge you to consider consider my reasoning on the original edit, though (aside from the "monkey see, monkey do"). The first sentence's comical redundancy emphasizes a point, but the second sentence's comical convolutions distract the reader from the point. Witty tone and clarity can coexist. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
I have removed the wiki-link to Monkey see monkey do twice. I have removed them because the linked article is not about further information on this article or an elaboration on: "mimic the structures of other articles". If you absolutely want to wiki-link this I would suggest Imitation over Monkey see, monkey do, as it better explains what is meant by the phrase. On a side note if it's the monkey you like there's a picture of a monkey on the Imitation article :) - Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 13:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, look, I don't want to make a huge fuzz over this either. How about this: If you are truly convinced that the link not only doesn't add anything to the essay (which imho it definitely does) and find that the link actually harms the essay, then I won't insist on it. But I'd really like to hear a plausible reasoning on how exactly the link harms the essay. -- 78.34.252.223 ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I cited the last guideline only to help explain my point, since you didn't seem to understand, I even said that I knew it's not policy. As for being outnumbered it's you and me (I think) no one else has put in any other input. In my first reply, I conceded that the essay does resemble 'Monkey See, Monkey Do', I offered up a compromise in my last reply and now have incivility returned. - Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this page represents general practice any longer, or where it is headed. It's become a norm here that some identifier of the topic is bolded in the lead, since WP content can be reused in any way within the GFDL/CC licensing terms, including without the article title. This means we need to think more clearly about what names we give to articles, and how to write leads, not that we should abandon boldfacing any time a proper name isn't involved. While some of this essay remains pertinent, especially some of the clearer examples of rather lame boldfacing, parts of it are clearly obsolete.
A clear example would be Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, one of the "don't boldface" cases used in this essay. If you go to the article, as of this writing, you'll see that the lead begins with "The effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans have been long-lasting. As the center of Katrina passed South-east of New Orleans on August 29, 2005, winds ..." This is perfectly acceptable and downright normal at Wikipedia, as of February 2012 [update]. If the article had been badly titled, to make a lead look stupid when written this way, e.g. New Orleans effects of Hurricane Katrina, the article would need to be moved, rather than the capitalization convention abandoned. This probably means that the other "smoking gun" examples in the essay should probably be renamed or have their leads tweaked. The fact that a convention can sometimes require some thought in its application doesn't mean it should be abandoned. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have spent much time editing, and I hope improving the article on Soil. Recently someone edited the article to eliminate what that editor felt was excessive use of bold outside of WP guidelines. I understand how distracting it might be to find an excessive use of bold within an article, but I used bold in an attempt to improve the readability.
I don't know about you, but I have the attention span of a gnat. Five seconds into the reading of a paragraph my attention has slipped towards thoughts of Lady Gaga (love that name). I find the use of bold enhances my retention greatly. In way of example, I ask you to read the section "Soil forming factors" and make note of how the use of bold to connect the ideas to be expanded upon listed in bold in the introducing paragraph of that section enhances the retention of the information.
I would hate to see the guidelines expanded to allow the total free use of bold as it would likely be abused, but in the case of its use to highlight key ideas that are later expanded I might suggest that WP guidelines should be enlarged a bit.
Honestly, I'm just writing this because I want someone to go read the article. Zedshort ( talk) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is described as "awkward phrasing":
The Selarang Barracks Incident, also known as the Barrack Square Incident, was an incident on ...
I'm not sure what "awkward phrasing" is supposed to mean; I don't find anything award about the example. Indeed, Selarang Barracks incident is currently classified as a good article and begins:
The Selarang Barracks incident also known as the Barrack Square incident or the Selarang Square Squeeze, ...
so the only point of contention would be the capitalization of "Incident", which has nothing to do with superfluous bolding. Perhaps the editor who used it as an example is under the impression that the incident is one of those "that don't necessarily have their own names"? It would appear from the lede that in fact there are three different recognised names.
I also note that no "correct" text is provided for the "incorrect" January 31 2007 Boston bomb scare and electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker ledes; the former now redirects to 2007 Boston Mooninite panic (which is bolded) and the latter to electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, which is not bolded but has wiklilinks in the lede text. jnestorius( talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Selarang Barracks incident [...] was an event during the World War II started on 30 August 1942" says nothing about the nature of an event, and leaves ambiguity as to whether the WWII started in 1942. As for electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, wikilinks are expressly permitted in the lede text – what is not permitted are bolded wikilinks.
@
Deeday-UK: You said "there's nothing wrong with the previous version..."
I will have to disagree with your nothing wrong comment. The second sentence could have some work. I'm reading along, and I see: "That is, how not to awkwardly, superfluously cram..."
that is better in a more direct "That is, how to avoid awkwardly, superfluously cramming..."
. And then: "...an article's title in bold into its first sentence,..."
works okay, if the underlying structure is desirable to preserve, leaving "producing clumsy phrasing and circular definitions such as the above one."
, which leaves a sense of unease because what the reader actually wants to avoid is "producing clumsy phrasing and circular definitions such as the above one."
, where the avoidance of awkwardly, superfluously cramming an article's title in bold into its first sentence
is the means for this goal.
I suspect the redundancy triplet is what you wanted to preserve, but for me, it doesn't really drive the point home beyond the redundancy of the first sentence.
As for the second paragraph edit, "exist" is much more vague than "were chosen", so that's why I opted for that phrasing, and have reinstated that phrasing; the structure does not "exist" as an independent immortal entity, but was chosen by someone at some point, which is important to keep in mind for driving home the point this essay is conveying.
Therefore, I have made a simply mechanical edit that preserves the underlying structure.
I urge you to consider consider my reasoning on the original edit, though (aside from the "monkey see, monkey do"). The first sentence's comical redundancy emphasizes a point, but the second sentence's comical convolutions distract the reader from the point. Witty tone and clarity can coexist. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)