Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
See also related discussions and archives: |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Storied career
editI have found many examples of someone having had a "storied career". Is this a peacock term? It doesn't seem to convey any useful information. --Jameboy (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- At least they aren't describing them as novelists, athletes, musicians, etc. "of song and story". But, yes, it's a peacock term. 🦚🦚🦚 In fact, it makes me feel as I felt years ago when I discovered how many bio articles described someone having done or achieved something "at a tender age" or "at the tender age of X", driving me to edit hundreds of them to rid them of that sloppy sentimentality. (I think that's when I discovered AutoWikiBrowser.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- The town boasts several historic sites. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Historic sites which garner accolades. EEng 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have an aversion to the word "garnered" that I see used here so often. It isn't that the word is used only here, but I feel like it's become a very Wikipedia word, one that people use here mostly because they see it used in other articles, very wiki-trendy, and that they otherwise wouldn't use. I can't say that I have any policy-based or MOS-based objection to it, and until just now I thought it was only a peculiarity of mine, but do you feel the same way? Largoplazo (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's the kind of writing you find in press releases and Variety. EEng 00:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have an aversion to the word "garnered" that I see used here so often. It isn't that the word is used only here, but I feel like it's become a very Wikipedia word, one that people use here mostly because they see it used in other articles, very wiki-trendy, and that they otherwise wouldn't use. I can't say that I have any policy-based or MOS-based objection to it, and until just now I thought it was only a peculiarity of mine, but do you feel the same way? Largoplazo (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Historic sites which garner accolades. EEng 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- The town boasts several historic sites. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think in general the term "storied" is a peacock term, at least that use... Obviously doesn't apply to the other common uses (as in having multiple floors or being decorated with historical/mythological motifs/images). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- It conveys the impression of impactfulness, but that is better shown through describing the actual impact. CMD (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe it can be promotional but I see it more as slightly pompous, meaningless waffle used to pad out content without actually saying anything. It is bad, clichéd writing but I doubt that it is done in bad faith. The real peacocks will go for something rather more extravagant. Nonetheless, I think it can safely be removed any time it shows up outside of a quotation. It's not adding anything of value. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
MOS:SAID citation needed
editMOS:SAID has to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness
. Where does this come from? I was recently taken to task for using "noted", so I dove into the OED and don't see anything which supports this interpretation. I do (ahem) note that For example, "X noted," "X reported," and "X observed" imply that X was correct so to note, report, or observe
goes all the way back to very first revision of this page in 2010, and has slowly evolved over the years into the current wording. But do we have any rigorous citations that this is correct, or is it just something SlimVirgin wrote and people have been cargo culting ever since? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think there are some situations where "noted" does imply more truthfulness than "wrote". Something like "RoySmith wrote that bananas are the best. Firefangledfeathers noted that RoySmith was incorrect." If we're in a situation where there is no undue implication of truthfulness, the guideline doesn't proscribe use of the words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- But do we have any citations from reputable dictionaries or similar sources which support these interpretations? If not, then it's just WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- M-W has for note "to notice or observe with care; to record or preserve in writing". So there is something being noticed, observed, recorded, or preserved. "Trystan noted that the glass had broken, but it had not," sounds self-contradictory, while "Trystan said that the glass had broken, but it had not," does not.--Trystan (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- But do we have any citations from reputable dictionaries or similar sources which support these interpretations? If not, then it's just WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Bold addition to MOS:RELTIME
editI'd like to note that I've just done a bold addition to MOS:RELTIME about how to reword phrases such as "in recent years" or "in modern times". I don't expect any disagreement, but just in case, I'd like to explain these additions here for good understanding.
I come across "in recent years" or "in modern times" all the time, especially in articles written in the early days of Wikipedia (c. 2001–2009). I think these recommendations follow logically from the previous sentences' examples of "in the past" and "traditional(ly)"
. I also think they weren't yet adequately covered by the first and second paragraph of MOS:RELTIME, which discuss cases in which a specific year or even month can be found. Because sometimes, it's a bit more vague than that, particularly when it describes a gradual development or a series of loosely-connected events, which spans several unspecified years or decades. For example, in this case, I've just reworded in recent years to in the 2010s and 2020s, based on the cited source, which only mentions examples from the 2010s and 2020s.
To avoid cluttering up the subsection, I've added a footnote with more examples and an explanation/rationale: Given that such descriptions often reflect the time in which editors have been writing since Wikipedia's launch in 2001, more fitting descriptions often include "by the early 21st century", "since the early 2000s", or "in the 2010s and 2020s". These are all examples that I've used myself to reword such phrases on English Wikipedia and especially Dutch Wikipedia, where lots of articles have barely been updated since the early days (c. 2001–2009), and so the time of writing is erroneously (or short-sightedly) presented as reflecting a permanent state of affairs. Sometimes, this also involves changing the grammar from simple present to simple past. For example, in this article, which cited two scholarly sources from 2002 and 2009, I changed Today, some consider to As of the early 2000s, some scholars considered.
(As an aside, this section also had some POV phrasings that I reworded, e.g. claims how 'viable' and 'stable' Nynorsk is or needs to be considered, which are inadmissible per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAPBOX. This question is in fact hotly debated. I just randomly googled two more recent sources that arrived at opposite conclusions, with this 2022 book arguing Nynorsk is steadily decreasing
(without specifying between when and when), while this 2020 book argues twice that the actual number of Nynorsk writers has not decreased the latter years / has been stable the last decades, but the percentage is decreasing
(without clarifying which or how many 'latter years' or 'last decades' these were). Ironically, both books apparently cite the same '12% of elementary school pupils in Norway' figure from the [Vangsnes] 2018 report to make their argument that Nynorsk use is both steadily decreasing
and has been stable the last decades
. It seems that the 2022 book is implicitly comparing the figures of 34,1% in 1945 and 20% in 1965 – which the 2020 book mentions explicitly – to the 12% figure of [Vangsnes] 2018 to conclude Nynorsk is steadily decreasing
, while the 2020 book offers no figures to support the claim that Nynorsk use has been stable the last decades
. I honestly have no idea what the truth is. But this is a perfect example of how contradicting assertions can be made if we allow ourselves to be vague in our wordings, and do not properly cite sources to support our conclusions.)
At any rate, if anyone has questions or suggestions about my WP:BOLD addition, please say so. I'm happy to discuss any issues. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Bold clarification of lead sentence
editI've just boldly added or imprecise meaning
to the first sentence to clarify that this page doesn't only talk about words that can introduce bias. I hope this is okay, please ping me if there's any further discussion necessary. Fork99 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Use of Infinitesimally small okay or no?
editMy apologies for this question, but I am working on a series of articles (all my own work) and I tried to find out whether the term Infinitesimally small may be used, but I could find nothing for or against it. I am not sure that my articles will make it into Wikipedia, and (I don't know how to say this without sounding negative, and I don't mean it that way at all) my end goal is not to put these articles in Wikipedia but I happen to like and respect the Wikipedia adherence to facts and avoiding the use of opinions or words that carry that...flavor?...tone? for lack of better terms, so that the story or article is not only based on facts, but leaving out the words like the excellent examples given in these pages within the Manual of Style. Anyway I am trying to ensure that my articles are, even if they never appear in Wikipedia or anywhere else, I just want to know that they could pass muster, if you like, if they were to be in Wikipedia. I have been able to find answers to every other question or instance I had wondered about. I am not trying to make any waves (I have inadvertently done this a few times in the past—enough that I feel the need to wave the white flag [that is another one that is loaded, but I use it for a peaceful purpose] in case anyone might wonder, with adequate reason), I really just want to know whether the phrase or term infinitesimally small would be allowed. Please. I am only using it as a descriptive term, as one might use to explain what something that is so small—almost beyond understanding—would be talking about. But without any opinion involved: would that term be acceptable? I am being specific because while I didn't find the descriptive term, using both words, I did find an instance of the word Infinitesimal (without the -ly and without the additional word small) but it was talking about mathematics, or the specific... branch or area of mathematics that uses the word Infinitesimal, but it is not at all what I meant. Thank you for your help and understanding in advance.
MichaelTheGamer (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Context would help. I agree in some areas this is a term of art to explain simplification in equations, but in other fields it's a subjective measure. Masem (t) 17:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)