Wikipedia talk:The problem with elegant variation

Technical writing

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)[reply]

Indeed - and in fact I worked as a technical writer for a few years. Popcornduff (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non Personal Elegant Variation

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)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Can you give an example of beneficial "non-personal" elegant variation? Popcornduff (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ease I'll just grab the one in your first line - blaze instead of fire. If I was writing a paragraph that would require me to write fire more than a couple of times then blaze might well make it in instead.

With regards to beneficial, I'd view any change where drab repetitive language is reduced without a significant disruption to clarity. (Clearly that exact boundary would vary slightly depending on what was being written and who it was being written to) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Of the same name"

moved discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"Of_the_same_name"

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 often more words and syllables than the title itself. OTSN is not always short-hand, sometimes just the opposite.
It obfuscates the title behind a pipe, making it less clear to the reader who has to think through an editorial phrase that isn't necessary.
OTSN does make grammatical sense if the film title and book title are used in the same sentence to avoid duplication, but this is often not the case. Usually any mention of the novel title is hidden behind OTSN.
OTSN is now so common on Wikipedia it has become a cliche; it is not done outside of Wikipedia to this extent, it is an English Wikipedia cultural artifact.

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. -- GreenC 13:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your objections - it's definitely a "danger phrase" to me. I think it's an example of elegant variation, ie the dodgy substitution of words for fear of repetition (see my WP:ELEVAR essay). I don't think it's ever necessary, and instead would go for one of these:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel by Michel Faber.
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.

I don't think repeating the title is that clunky, personally. Popcornduff (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: WP:ELEVAR essay is very interesting. If you would like to add a special section for "of the same name" I would happily link to it in edit summaries when making corrective edits. -- GreenC 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Sure. I've added a section about OTSN. Let me know what you think. Popcornduff (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Made some changes.. -- GreenC 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be suggesting that this wording never be used, which is how the current section comes across. The alternative suggestions here should just be for cases where there is a better solution than using this wording. That is not necessarily always going to be the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've softened it slightly (replaced "introduces problems" with "can introduce problems"), but as this is an essay about examples of bad elegant variation, I'm happy to keep it as an often problematic example. Popcornduff (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly that the repetition in the second example is not clunky. It is the very soul of clunkiness. The first example is fine, although WP:EASTEREGG might point to "2000 novel of the same name" as being less surprising. I would very strongly suggest removing example 2 from the essay. Certainly the first example here should be the preferred alternate listed in the essay at the very least. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to remove the entire section, as it wasn't one of the things I had in mind when I wrote the essay. It was proposed by another editor and I broadly supported it, but it's attracting a lot of ire, clearly. Popcornduff (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see how it could be overused by default... but I really find the repetition "solution" more problematic than the use of the purportedly offending phrase. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about which example you object to. Which one is it exactly? Popcornduff (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this one:

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

appalling. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the essay suggests that as a bad way to do it, and explains why. Does my recent edit appall you less? Popcornduff (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Titular characters

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)[reply]

Adding: when following the Groucho link, look at the very bottom of the page. E Eng 02:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I actually implemented it but reverted it for the moment because I want to find an example of a film or work that dosn't just have the character name as its title (as Catwoman does). Otherwise it just brings up other arguments of repetitive prose which isn't meant to be the point of the section (see the "Of the same name" debate). I'm sure good examples exist, but it's time for bed for me now... Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide if you're turning the titular tables on me. E Eng 16:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I sometimes think this place is just awash with complete tits. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The linked article suggests so many winking puns that it's positively dazzling. This could keep us in business for years. E Eng 22:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]