Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Elegant variation has drawbacks in general writing as you explain. The problem is more serious in technical writing, where the use of synonyms can create invalid distinctions between concepts. Technical writers are (supposed to be) taught to avoid this problem. As with technical articles, Wikipedia articles need clarity more than elegance. - Arch dude ( talk) 14:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
By which I mean the use of variation other than that referring to people. Obviously your early examples give cases where it had clearly gone wrong, mainly by being taken to excess, but I feel that significant usage of elegant variation is usually beneficial. Clearly in subject/object cases it has an easier vulnerability to going wrong - I was taught to use it but default towards clarity as needed.
In any case, an interesting essay, but I feel that if you do a significant re-write at any stage, an expansion on "non-personal" EV would be intriguing to read. Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
In film + novel articles sharing the same title, it is common practice to short-hand linking with [[novel title|of the same name]]
(OTSN). OTSN is not always the best solution:
OTSN is used so often on Wikipedia (est. over 13,000 times), it would be appropriate to provide grammatical and editorial guidance on usage. There are correct times to use, but it's not mandatory and there should be some consideration it shouldn't always be used wherever a film and novel share the same title. The MOS might provide some guidance. -- Green C 13:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber
That helps... I think previously, because it was the first alternative given, it wasn't clear that it wasn't necessarily the best one—generally if someone is saying "don't do it like this" and follows that with "you could do it like this", I think the default assumption is that the alternative is acceptable. Or at least that is how I read it at first, clearly. I think it could be streamlined by simply skipping the "better but still has issues" version (where the title is repeated) and just going right to the "[year of publication] novel" version. But either way, the version now with the "You can write out the name (again) but that's clunky/awkward" intro is much clearer. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 09:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The page currently [1] says
There's rarely any use in pointing out when something is titular. For example:
Batman Returns is a 1992 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton, based on the titular DC Comics character.
For reasons that surely must be obvious, I would think that Batgirl or Catwoman would be better examples of titular characters than is Batman, unless of course we take Groucho Marx's famous comment into account. E Eng 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding: when following the Groucho link, look at the very bottom of the page. E Eng 02:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The crew of the helpless and doomed American ship cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea was called by the American commander on the scene "one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure." Making for the harbour mouth, the British ship's bow and stern alternately rose and plunged ...Believe it or not, all the bolded stuff refers to the same ship. BTW, the same article carries the hatnote For other ships with the same name, see HMS Calliope; I suppose we could rewrite it to say For titular ships, see HMS Calliope.
In 1901, still at the peak of his career, he performed his "Huntsman" sketch for Edward VII at Sandringham. The monarch was so impressed that Leno became publicly known as "the king's jester".
The performance was a success and Little Tich returned every night, often accompanying his tin-whistle piece with impromptu dance routines. News of his performances spread, and he was soon signed up by the proprietor of the neighbouring Royal Exchange music hall, who bought his new signing a pair of clogs.The phrase his new signing refers to Little Tich. No kidding.
Prisoners failing to pay were declared defaulters by the prison crier, had their names written up in the kitchen, and were sent to Coventry.We are not making this up.
The glasses Root wore to play Milton had lenses so thick that the actor had to wear contact lenses to see through them.[6]
A memoir published by Alexandre Exquemelin, a former shipmate of Morgan's, accused the privateer of widespread torture and other offences; Morgan brought a libel suit against the book's English publishers and won, although the black picture Exquemelin portrayed of Morgan has affected history's view of the Welshman.[7] Everything in bold is the same person -- I think. It makes your head spin. E Eng 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
She became Lady Beerbohm when Beerbohm married her privately on his death bed on 20 April 1956 to ensure that under Italian law she would inherit all his possessions. On the death of her husband in May 1956 Jungmann became his literary executor.[8] On first reading this makes it sound like she was a bigamist.
Another solution to this problem:
Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.
is to change the link text slightly:
Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.
Unlike "novel", "the novel" can't refer to novels in general. -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "ludicrous" examples (elongated yellow fruit, etc.) add much to the essay, because they're not what you'll typically see in a WP article, and they distract from the main point.... -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Smith and Jones qualified for the 200-meter freestyle event, in which the former came in first and the latter third.
Two groups of landowners were involved: those owning 200 acres or more, for at least 5 years and not as community property; and those owning 200 acres or more, either for less than 5 years or as community property. The former qualified for the exemption automatically; the latter were required to request a hearing.
From this piece, The Twitter Account That Collects Awkward, Amusing Writing:
On Wikipedia, in a contributor-discussion section of what has become the biggest collaborative-writing process in world history, you’ll find an instructive essay titled “The problem with elegant variation.” “Elegant variation distracts the reader, removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humour or muddled metaphors,” it says.
Instructive! Popcornfud ( talk) 09:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Given this sentence:
Is there a better way than "with the words" since it is self-evident words "describe"? Green C 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
My edits to this page
to this effect have been reverted twice. I think it'd be good pedagogy teaching to show an example of a better version of the examples, and this seems like a good place to do it, although I could see a section at the bottom as acceptable as well. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Too lazy to write it up now, but the following is an example where the variation (arguably) belongs: This description ... is from Harlow's observations set down soon after the accident, but Harlow—perhaps hesitant to describe his patient negatively while he was still alive—delayed publishing it until 1868, after Gage had died...
E
Eng 08:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems we will do so. English has too much vocabulary, it needs to be pruned. -- Kamil Hasenfeller ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Popcornfud: "Aforementioned" is rarely necessary, and always a bit pompous. I've pruned it from a few articles. Do we want to say something about it here, although it isn't really elegant variation? -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Bentley won the Nottingham New Theatre award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in 2013. He found further success in 2014 when he won the award for a second time running. In 2015 he became a fellow of the aforementioned theatre.Popcornfud ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Repetitions of the subject-matter of an article like 'film' or 'game' - such as 'style' in an article on a mustache style - can force the hand of editors to resort to elegant variation. See Special:Diff/1195341071/1197283732: "bolsters the style", "groomed the style", "flaunted the style", "styled it", "donned the style", "maintained the style", "takes on the style". -- Green C 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Why do writers think it necessary to say "eponymous" when both the eponym and the namesake are explicit? -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Cleter: Fowler mentions the case where the variation leads to confusion: are we talking about two different things? Some of his examples:
An example of this I recently came across seems to contrast "will host matches" and "is set to host matches". Does "will" imply certainty while "is set to" imply a plan which may or may not be implemented? or that the stadium is prepared to host the matches although the decision to host them there hasn't been made? -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Probably not worth adding to the article, but this is egregious: [21] -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Which company? [22] -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Elegant variation has drawbacks in general writing as you explain. The problem is more serious in technical writing, where the use of synonyms can create invalid distinctions between concepts. Technical writers are (supposed to be) taught to avoid this problem. As with technical articles, Wikipedia articles need clarity more than elegance. - Arch dude ( talk) 14:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
By which I mean the use of variation other than that referring to people. Obviously your early examples give cases where it had clearly gone wrong, mainly by being taken to excess, but I feel that significant usage of elegant variation is usually beneficial. Clearly in subject/object cases it has an easier vulnerability to going wrong - I was taught to use it but default towards clarity as needed.
In any case, an interesting essay, but I feel that if you do a significant re-write at any stage, an expansion on "non-personal" EV would be intriguing to read. Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
In film + novel articles sharing the same title, it is common practice to short-hand linking with [[novel title|of the same name]]
(OTSN). OTSN is not always the best solution:
OTSN is used so often on Wikipedia (est. over 13,000 times), it would be appropriate to provide grammatical and editorial guidance on usage. There are correct times to use, but it's not mandatory and there should be some consideration it shouldn't always be used wherever a film and novel share the same title. The MOS might provide some guidance. -- Green C 13:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber
That helps... I think previously, because it was the first alternative given, it wasn't clear that it wasn't necessarily the best one—generally if someone is saying "don't do it like this" and follows that with "you could do it like this", I think the default assumption is that the alternative is acceptable. Or at least that is how I read it at first, clearly. I think it could be streamlined by simply skipping the "better but still has issues" version (where the title is repeated) and just going right to the "[year of publication] novel" version. But either way, the version now with the "You can write out the name (again) but that's clunky/awkward" intro is much clearer. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 09:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The page currently [1] says
There's rarely any use in pointing out when something is titular. For example:
Batman Returns is a 1992 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton, based on the titular DC Comics character.
For reasons that surely must be obvious, I would think that Batgirl or Catwoman would be better examples of titular characters than is Batman, unless of course we take Groucho Marx's famous comment into account. E Eng 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding: when following the Groucho link, look at the very bottom of the page. E Eng 02:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The crew of the helpless and doomed American ship cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea was called by the American commander on the scene "one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure." Making for the harbour mouth, the British ship's bow and stern alternately rose and plunged ...Believe it or not, all the bolded stuff refers to the same ship. BTW, the same article carries the hatnote For other ships with the same name, see HMS Calliope; I suppose we could rewrite it to say For titular ships, see HMS Calliope.
In 1901, still at the peak of his career, he performed his "Huntsman" sketch for Edward VII at Sandringham. The monarch was so impressed that Leno became publicly known as "the king's jester".
The performance was a success and Little Tich returned every night, often accompanying his tin-whistle piece with impromptu dance routines. News of his performances spread, and he was soon signed up by the proprietor of the neighbouring Royal Exchange music hall, who bought his new signing a pair of clogs.The phrase his new signing refers to Little Tich. No kidding.
Prisoners failing to pay were declared defaulters by the prison crier, had their names written up in the kitchen, and were sent to Coventry.We are not making this up.
The glasses Root wore to play Milton had lenses so thick that the actor had to wear contact lenses to see through them.[6]
A memoir published by Alexandre Exquemelin, a former shipmate of Morgan's, accused the privateer of widespread torture and other offences; Morgan brought a libel suit against the book's English publishers and won, although the black picture Exquemelin portrayed of Morgan has affected history's view of the Welshman.[7] Everything in bold is the same person -- I think. It makes your head spin. E Eng 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
She became Lady Beerbohm when Beerbohm married her privately on his death bed on 20 April 1956 to ensure that under Italian law she would inherit all his possessions. On the death of her husband in May 1956 Jungmann became his literary executor.[8] On first reading this makes it sound like she was a bigamist.
Another solution to this problem:
Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.
is to change the link text slightly:
Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.
Unlike "novel", "the novel" can't refer to novels in general. -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "ludicrous" examples (elongated yellow fruit, etc.) add much to the essay, because they're not what you'll typically see in a WP article, and they distract from the main point.... -- Macrakis ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Smith and Jones qualified for the 200-meter freestyle event, in which the former came in first and the latter third.
Two groups of landowners were involved: those owning 200 acres or more, for at least 5 years and not as community property; and those owning 200 acres or more, either for less than 5 years or as community property. The former qualified for the exemption automatically; the latter were required to request a hearing.
From this piece, The Twitter Account That Collects Awkward, Amusing Writing:
On Wikipedia, in a contributor-discussion section of what has become the biggest collaborative-writing process in world history, you’ll find an instructive essay titled “The problem with elegant variation.” “Elegant variation distracts the reader, removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humour or muddled metaphors,” it says.
Instructive! Popcornfud ( talk) 09:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Given this sentence:
Is there a better way than "with the words" since it is self-evident words "describe"? Green C 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
My edits to this page
to this effect have been reverted twice. I think it'd be good pedagogy teaching to show an example of a better version of the examples, and this seems like a good place to do it, although I could see a section at the bottom as acceptable as well. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Too lazy to write it up now, but the following is an example where the variation (arguably) belongs: This description ... is from Harlow's observations set down soon after the accident, but Harlow—perhaps hesitant to describe his patient negatively while he was still alive—delayed publishing it until 1868, after Gage had died...
E
Eng 08:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems we will do so. English has too much vocabulary, it needs to be pruned. -- Kamil Hasenfeller ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Popcornfud: "Aforementioned" is rarely necessary, and always a bit pompous. I've pruned it from a few articles. Do we want to say something about it here, although it isn't really elegant variation? -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Bentley won the Nottingham New Theatre award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in 2013. He found further success in 2014 when he won the award for a second time running. In 2015 he became a fellow of the aforementioned theatre.Popcornfud ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Repetitions of the subject-matter of an article like 'film' or 'game' - such as 'style' in an article on a mustache style - can force the hand of editors to resort to elegant variation. See Special:Diff/1195341071/1197283732: "bolsters the style", "groomed the style", "flaunted the style", "styled it", "donned the style", "maintained the style", "takes on the style". -- Green C 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Why do writers think it necessary to say "eponymous" when both the eponym and the namesake are explicit? -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Cleter: Fowler mentions the case where the variation leads to confusion: are we talking about two different things? Some of his examples:
An example of this I recently came across seems to contrast "will host matches" and "is set to host matches". Does "will" imply certainty while "is set to" imply a plan which may or may not be implemented? or that the stadium is prepared to host the matches although the decision to host them there hasn't been made? -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Probably not worth adding to the article, but this is egregious: [21] -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Which company? [22] -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)