Wikipedia talk:Principle of Some Astonishment/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM PC FRS FRIC

I'm not sure that this is a good addition. One could argue instead that it's all the stuff at the top that should go. And it opens up the controversy over infoboxes. And actually, it's not so contrary to style to have an image caption. Alternatively, maybe there is a better example, one where the top and the caption are completely identical. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Right after I added it I thought exactly the same thing (i.e. your last sentence) but I figured I'd leave it as a placeholder for the time being. E Eng 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Good choice, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how I stumbled on this

...but it might be my new favourite page on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, aren't you sweet! E Eng 03:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I do have to agree that it makes a fun read while also being very educating. Well done!

Regards So Why 13:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant piece

I've thought of writing pretty much the same essay myself, but due to old history as a WP:HOTHEAD I tend to get "tone-policed"; someone would probably have objected and claimed massive butt-hurt if I had done this myself. PS: I don't get the "frumpy" bit; the monarch and the other woman are wearing essentially identical outfits apart from colour. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I am grateful and honored by your kind words. (The fact that the two ladies were sartorially indistinguishable is part of the joke.) E Eng 04:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I must have the wrong humo[u]r hat on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The police showing up at the scene of the stabbing & shooting needs to be added. This page is great. Watchlisting it. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be required reading at every university's introduction to English composition class. EEng, you should at least get Harvard to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nitpick

Regarding Readers not raised in caves will know that rugs are typically deployed on floors, this isn't as much of a statement of the obvious as you'd think. The context is a rug on display in a 19th-century academic institution, and the conventional way to display valuable rugs (then and now) is upright, either by hanging them picture-style on the wall, hanging them from the ceiling so visitors can walk around them, or (if there's a lack of space or concerns about them fading if exposed to light for long periods) in a hinged display rack. Putting a valuable rug on the floor, which both causes damage as people walk on it and necessitates regular cleaning with all the damage vacuuming and/or solvents can cause, is actually quite unusual in this context. (The only significant carpet I can think of that is displayed horizontally is the Ardabil Carpet, and that necessitated a rebuild of a section of the V&A to allow it to be displayed on the floor without risking damage.) ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither you, I, nor the talk page stalkers we both so cherish would be what we are and where we are were we not nitpickers (and try saying that five times fast). The thing is, it's not any kind of academic library, it's just a comfy room in a Unitarian church. See [1]. E Eng 20:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter—the point is that readers won't necessarily expect it to be on the floor, so it's not unreasonable for the article to mention the fact. An awful lot of things that appear to be stating the obvious often stem from the fact that Wikipedia articles are written for a broad cross-section, and you can't always assume that readers will take the same things for granted that you do.

That Harry Lauder also one seems wrong as an example of stating the obvious. I interpret "Lauder was interred with the rest of his family, who had predeceased him" not as "Lauder was interred along with those of his relatives who were dead", but as "At the time of his death, Lauder was the last surviving member of his family, and the entire family was interred together", which if true is certainly worthy of note (both the "last of his line" and the "family plot" elements—family burials are far less common in the UK than in the US, owing to the British tradition of re-using graves and the general prevalence of cremation). ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Though personally I find it hard to believe any significant number of readers will be misled, will you rest more easy if we removed those two examples? We've got plenty of other material. E Eng 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Was Lauder really the last person in his family to die? If so, the article should say that in an unambiguous way. I saw the origional as saying either that he was the last to die, or the people already buried died before him. Either way it is bad writing. I've updated the section.

I don't understand the carpet to be significant on it's own, it is only mentioned as a gift in memory of the subject. Maybe it should not even be mentioned. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but now the burial item isn't nearly as fun. Subject to objection from someone that really loves them so much that we need to keep massaging them to make them acceptable, I'm just removing these two items. E Eng 02:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to quibble on this one, too, but was simply going to suggest "... typically deployed on floors (except in a museum or shop context, with tapestry-style vertical display)", or something to this effect. It really is true that 99%+ of the time we don't need to tell readers that a rug or carpet is on the floor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Carpenters

Any chance you can squeeze this diff in somewhere? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worse. There was an edit war over the inclusion of Karen. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to oblige, but the problem is that the caption really ought to be simply Early 1970s, and then it's just a repeat of the Harry Widener example (and he has a more amusing name). E Eng 17:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The article was a train wreck of MEDRS-violating speculation, and tabloid gossip, and edit wars. I've cleaned some of it up. (Would I commit social suicide if I said I quite like a couple of Carpenters tracks, and fondly think of Terry Wogan air-guitar soloing to "Goodbye to Love"?) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You should have seen it before [2]. E Eng 18:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A circus camel in a place article

Found this in new page patrol [3] Nice circus camel! Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How true

A very funny and useful article. I just spent a lot of time, however, making sure it was clear to one or two people that a medicinal plant is, ahem, a plant with medicinal uses. With top-notch refs to prove it, too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

An example from Chloe

a feminine name for girls. Eman 235/talk 02:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Duly added. E Eng 04:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit descriptions

Can we include edit descriptions, such as mine here, preferably stopping after 'which was not in cited source' unless we actually want to encourage editors to cheat to get themselves in here? Of course encouraging such cheating in edit descriptions may be a good idea if it means that we only ridicule editors who don't mind the ridicule, at least in this context, thereby reducing the risk that this essay will damage editor retention by ridiculing editors who do mind the ridicule, especially if they have such weird notions as suspecting that there might be more important tasks for Wikipedians to do than wasting their time and risking making Wikipedia even harder to understand than it often already is, purely to avoid the risk of being ridiculed by those who appear to accept that Basil Fawlty, as currently cited in our article, is some kind of sage and role model for the rest of us, who is also obviously far more sensible than his wife Sybil. And while we're at it, should we not perhaps also remove all the 'bleeding obvious' explanations of why something is allegedly 'bleeding obvious' that appear littered throughout this article? After all, if something really is 'bleeding obvious' then it seemingly shouldn't be necessary to explain that it is 'bleeding obvious' (says I, as I explain something 'bleeding obvious'). Of course it should also be bleeding obvious that the only reason I can write any of this here nonsense is that I totally lack any kind of sense of humour. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that in the above, 'not in cited source' is only 'bleeding obvious' if you know that the cited source dated from 1984, which you can only find out by looking at the former text; but fortunately that shouldn't matter as we now live in the age of alternative facts. Of course with hindsight I could perhaps have written 'not in cited 1984 source', but that would presumably make me even more guilty of wasting the precious 'time and brainpower' of editors by wickedly stating the 'bleeding obvious'. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is excellent!

This and WP:WIKISPEAK are my two favourite essays, it ~~is hilarious, and~~ makes me giggle to the grave irritation of my neighbours. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Astonishing, isn't it?

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason for over-explaining an image

While I do believe that "brevity is the essence of wit", there are reasons for over-explanitory captions, because sightless folk do refer to Wikipedia. Ideally a long caption is somewhere if not in the article itself. Doing my kiljoy bit. Cheers, GeeBee60 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

GeeBee60: for the sightless we have the |alt= parameter -- see MOS:ALT. Joy reigns once again. E Eng 03:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a draft...

But [4] "Her family includes her father, mother, younger brother" She is so unusual to have parents. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Old maps have old borders

R8R recently removed the explanation of the borders from the map in CERN that informed readers that the map of 1954 founding member states reflects the borders from 1954. I think this should be added. Regards So Why 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ironically that map doesn't actually show the borders as of September 1954; it shows Saarland as part of West Germany, doesn't show Trieste as independent, shows West Berlin as part of the DDR, shows the Isle of Man as part of the UK, and shows Algeria as independent. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like this isn't a completely clean example, unfortunately. E Eng 18:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Pictures section

Dear EEng, would you mind if I volunteered to bring some orderly formatting to the pictures section, or do you prefer them scattered about as they stand? — JFG ^talk 21:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you demonstrate on just a few to start? From your post I wonder if we're seeing different layouts on different platforms. E Eng 23:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

All done. That's it for tonight. — JFG ^talk 02:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sample of the proposed layout

In Assassination of Abraham Lincoln:	About Horst Wessel:	In The Wizard of Oz (1939 film):
~~From left to right: assassin~~ John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, Clara Harris, and Henry Rathbone	Wessel ~~as an infant~~ with his mother and father, 1907	The film's main characters ~~(left to right)~~: the Cowardly Lion, Dorothy, Scarecrow, and the Tin Man Bert Lahr~~, in costume~~ as The Cowardly Lion
It's a common misconception that the man with the gun is Mrs. Lincoln.	You don't say!	The word "unnecessary" hardly does justice. Not a bad case of hirsutism?

Much better. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful. Gigantic improvement. But please retain the current phrasing in each case, which we can consider modifying separately as desired. Also, I'm worried about width for older screens and mobile; in fact on my phone right now the Wizard images are messed up. Here's a try with 2 across:

In Assassination of Abraham Lincoln:	About Horst Wessel:
~~From left to right: assassin~~ John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, Clara Harris, and Henry Rathbone	Wessel ~~as an infant~~ with his mother and father, 1907
It's a common misconception that the man with the gun is Mrs. Lincoln.	You don't say!

E Eng 23:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above I think 2 across is probably better, but feel free to say if I'm missing something. Why not set up, say, 3 or 4 rows of two and then let's all look them over. It's fine to do them in place unless you think we'll need a lot of experimentation or alternative versions, etc. E Eng 23:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The only text I took the liberty to change was DUH! into You don't say! on Baby Horst. I felt it did justice to the recently-added WP:YOUDONTSAY shortcut. Wouldn't you agree? I won't touch the rest.

Regarding screen widths, three columns are typically acceptable, and it lets me group pictures by themes. I can certainly remedy whatever is happening with the dual pics in The Wizard of Oz. I take it that you see the second picture rendered below the first one? — JFG ^talk 00:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Full steam ahead. E Eng 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful work. One point, though: the EEG and Gore Hall need to be paired. E Eng 01:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. — JFG ^talk 02:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Touch-up

I'm not adept enough with table markup to be able to fix it, but I notice that (at least on Firefox) two of the headers, "About The Desire of Ages:" and "In Boston Consolidated TRACON:", are not quite centered over their respective images, but rather skewed to the right. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. The issue is the width of the text below those pictures. We can add line breaks, but perhaps the text itself should be amended: the comment on the book looks out of place compared to all others. — JFG ^talk 20:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The TRACON one looks perfect to me now. The one about "The Desire of Ages" looks to me the same as it was before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct: It was easy to adjust TRACON, less so to adjust the book. Waiting for a more punchy text on that one. — JFG ^talk 13:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's not fuss these little things too much just yet. I'd like to shuffle a few things first. E Eng 20:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Touchup

JFG, can you make the following two swaps? Theta waves <=> Pentagon, TRACON <=> Harry Elkins Widener. Thanks. E Eng 19:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Done — JFG ^talk 13:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Just confirming that everything looks good on my display. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Deadpan titling

@EEng: This edit makes titles heavier than they should. If you appreciate deadpan concision, surely "In Article" is stronger than "In the article Article". I'd revert most and keep some of your creative input, such as the charming "Meanwhile, in Cambridge…". — JFG ^talk 12:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Really just a matter of practicing what the page preaches. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind curtain. First, I don't think I've thanked you clearly enough for your work improving the formatting, and other contributions. Your "gallery" technique is a bit fragile technically, and there are some little formatting oddities, but that's fine for a page like this and it looks really good. Now to your point... The lifeblood of humor is incongruity, and without delving too much into how my personal theories of comic technique apply here, the general idea is to let the (generally) staid headings play off against the ironic or sarcastic comments, and also against the less-staid headings sprinkled here and there. In many or most cases the strikeouts and comments don't make as much sense unless the reader has it firmly in mind what that we are in Article X, or that we're talking about the lead image in Article X, and that determines many of the headings right there. Also, if the headings try too hard to be amusing then the reader hasn't had time to recharge his laughter reserve when he gets to that image's comment: alternating straight then amusing, straight and amusing, is also an important technique. I'll probably tinker with them a bit in time, but mostly I prefer them pretty much as they are. Just my opinion but of course IT'S MY GODDAM ESSAY, INSECT! Sorry, my evil twin wrote that. E Eng 21:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Horvath

I chanced across this page while trying to discern the accent of some sovereign citizen nutjob (threatening to report city police to Trump for some reason), and found this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Added. E Eng 01:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

New York City is a City called City of New York

Really. Take a look at the infobox for New York City, and the ongoing surrealist discussion. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Spot the penguin

No longer in the article but at one point the article Scottish National Antarctic Expedition contained this image with the caption "Gilbert Kerr (right), a member of the expedition, plays bagpipes for an indifferent penguin, March 1904." Regards So Why 19:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Curator appreciates your bringing this to our attention. E Eng 21:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I applied it!

Not funny or interesting enough to use as an example on the page, but I had this essay in mind when I did: [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I had wavered over deleting "speaking" as well, and I see that guess-who did delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hilarious and Apt

Thank you to the Authors. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus required

After I switched from delousers to corkscrews,[6] our esteemed Curator thanked me, but another esteemed contributor reverted, saying "I'm all in favor of screwing, but I think the curator wants it to rhyme." Could the Curator make his position explicit? We're all in favour of screwing, obviously. — JFG ^talk 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll just say explicitly that I am glad that I am esteemed. EEng thanked me too. Obviously, this is a matter of the gravest seriousness. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Children! Do not quarrel! The fact is that I thought "screws corks" had a nice sound to it, but at the time I was riding in an old car on a bumpy back road, so I didn't notice that it spoils the houses, mouses, louses sequence. Honestly, I'm not happy with the sudden left turn from houses, mouses, louses into taxes. But the pickings are slim: [7]: axes, faxes, Miramax's, vaxes, saxes. OK: [8]. E Eng 14:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a good solution. Always practice safe sax. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Aural sex. E Eng 15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Good solution with this orgy of saxes! — JFG ^talk 05:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

[9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's hysterical. E Eng 23:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Shared with my doctor. Very important medical information. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Entry

I have an entry for consideration: "The Soviet Air Force also attacked from the air..." in this section at Battle of Tali-Ihantala. How else could it attack? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Damn Russians also used "bombers from the 276th Bomber Division". — JFG ^talk 07:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A good one! From the very same sentence: astonishingly, Soviet Air Force has Soviet divisions. Deserves being published in full: "The Soviet Air Force also attacked from the air and hit the staff of the Finnish Armored Division hard with bombers from the Soviet 276th Bomber Division." --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it sounds better in Russian? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing sounds better in Russian. E Eng 21:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to consult Trump about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

" "The Soviet Air Force also attacked from the air and hit the staff of the Finnish Armored Division hard with bombers from the Soviet 276th Bomber Division." => The Soviet Airforce, including the 276th Bomber Division, also vigorously attacked the Finnish forces." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the thrust of the article, I'm pretty sure it was translated from Finnish, not Russian. There're certain walled gardens of largely unsourced WWII fan fiction; this is one of such areas. Compare with the Finnish SS article, proudly displaying the "File:Finnish SS arm badges.png". Etc.

From the same Tali-Ihantala Battle article: "The Soviet offensive was crowned when the city of Viborg (Russian: Vyborg) was captured by the Soviets..." -- who knew that Russians use Latin script to write "Vyborg"? And more of Soviet offensives being conducted by the Soviets. You literally cannot make this shit up. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I earlier corrected another less blatent example on the page but there are more to fix. Obviously a major battle and the winners write the history. I ended up wordsmithing the first noted text based on ideas posted to this essay and some additional tightening. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Somethings are pretty obvious

When we don't need to provide a source for the obvious. [10] Nice catch by the IP Legacypac (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

But is it possible the {cn} was for some other stuff, like the side door and so on? E Eng 04:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe but the rest of the facts are well supported by the news reports I believe. The whole attack was filmed since the church was recording the service so the details are well known. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for takkanah fatwa bull

(or whatever you call it) During an argument about whether the infobox caption of Ben Shapiro should be something like "June 2016, Politicon, Pasadena, California" or "Shapiro at Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016" wherein I cited CAPTIONOBVIOUS as an example of why a subject's name need not be repeated in the infobox caption, it was pointed out to me that CAPTIONOBVIOUS does not include an example like "~~Shapiro~~ at Politicon, in Pasadena, California, June 2016". I say God is on my side. What sayeth the Curator and High Priests? Leviv ich 03:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Whoever said that has not met Harry Elkins Widener in the photo section. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

POINTy pedants point out that that caption has no information other than the name; it doesn't say "~~Harry Elkins Widner~~ at location in year", so if "location and year" are given–the argument goes–the name should be given, too. (In the middle of an RfC on that page about what the infobox caption should be, someone just came and changed the picture. I love Wikipedia.) Leviv ich 04:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If we had a location and year for Widener we could consider adding that as informative but just regardless the name is redundent. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The High Priest has SPOKEN! I knew God was on my side. Leviv ich 04:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac is an Executive Assistant Chief Deputy High Priest. E Eng 04:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The EACDHP for short. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think as long as he's wearing a special hat, it counts. Leviv ich 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for consideration

Diff -- what could all these military men be staring at? A menu? An ancient scroll? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I don't think this is a good candidate. It's not obvious it's a map; it could be a tank design. If it had said they were "~~studying a map while~~ discussing battle strategy" that would be different.` E Eng 03:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For your consideration

Can I respectfully nominate How the pair procreated is unspecified from The Owl and the Pussycat? (If it did specify how the pair procreated, children's literature might have taken quite a different turn.) ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Random thing I noticed

For some reason, even though Saving Private Ryan only has one diff, it's showing up as two separate click fields; the piped one, and then a small arrow to the left of the text. Nothing really important, but I've never seen that happen before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Weird. E Eng 23:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, weird. It goes away if one removes the 'nested' italic marks. Odd though. I can replicate it somewhat, by doing a similar thing. The italics are effectively 'closed' before the link text and 'opened' again after it, so you don't get italic text, but you do get the funky extra link mark on the left... -- Begoon 03:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think you've put your finger on it. E Eng 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Please remember to wash before making dinner.

Just for fun:

''[https://www.google.com ''normal text'']'' = normal text
'''[https://www.google.com '''''italic text''''']''' = italic text
''[https://www.google.com '''''bold text''''']'' = bold text

-- Begoon 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, this should probably be a phab ticket, or if you don't know how to do that post at WP:VPT and someone there can do it. E Eng 15:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Nah, this seems so trivial and unimportant (I've never seen it happen before in 10 years) that they would probably devote hundreds of ~~man~~ ~~person~~ entity-hours to it immediately, instead of to stuff like Phab:T192744 which actually matters (I see the detrimental consequences of it every day), so is left to languish in perpetual limbo... -- Begoon 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposition

Change "Wessel as an infant with his mother and father, 1907" to "Wessel as an infant with his parents, 1907" for GNL. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Better yet; "Wessel as a homo sapiens specimen in the sensorimotor stage of development, alongside xer assumed biological genitors #1 and #2." I'm sure that will satisfy even the most sensitive cohort of readers. — JFG ^talk 01:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to go with being triggered. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 06:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the original point: while parents would be preferable (being more concise), mother and father isn't really on point for ASTONISHMENT since it doesn't transmit obvious information, just information that could be conveyed with fewer words. E Eng 19:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

God this is clever!

{{anchor|babies}}, he wrote![11] I bow in awe. — JFG ^talk 18:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, yes, well, it was completely unconscious on my part, but then of course even my unconscious is brilliant. You flatter me. Please continue. E Eng 18:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: it was completely unconscious on my part, who exactly does your sublimely dazzling unconscious think she's fooling? Please continue. — JFG ^talk 20:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Great article

I know I've read this article before, but not sure if I commented. Hilarious stuff! As for subterranean cave and the obvious underground cave, there is underground burrow. 99 times out 100 an underground tunnel is redundant - I'm guessing a tunnel could also be within a building complex or something. In many cases underground mine is redundant, but there are open-to-air mines. Then there's all the variations between subterranean and underground. I'll probably write an article for my caving newsletter some day. I find a lot of new caves, and I'd like to name one Subterranean Underground Cavern, or SUC for short. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Motion to remove "Comment:" headers

In all the cited exquisite examples, astonishing statements are highlighted with an indent, green-coloured text and a stricken portion. Consequently, prefixing each of the author's immensely witty comments with a "Comment:" header is entirely superfluous and boring. Unless that's the point. — JFG ^talk 12:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Example

Status quo:

In the article Live-line working

~~Electricity is hazardous~~

Comment: I'm shocked.

Proposed change:

In the article Live-line working

~~Electricity is hazardous~~

I'm shocked.

Brevity is the soul of wit. — JFG ^talk 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I guess I started with Comment: long ago [12] and never thought about it again. Hmmmm. I don't know. I'm on the fence. Um... Others' thoughts? E Eng 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've thought about this and I guess I'd prefer to keep the introductory Comment: tag. I somehow like the narrator-over-your-shoulder feeling. E Eng 04:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I like it as is too. Perhaps just because of inertia, but it somehow seems to fit here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hitting both points at once

I just removed this gem from Jim Bell, which somehow manages to violate both the Principle of Some Astonishment and the Principle of Complete Puzzlement in one sentence. Not sure if there's a feasible way to add it here, but this was too good not to share. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Duly added. E Eng 02:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. It is we, your fellow editors, who thank you for helping our readers remain at least a bit astonished. E Eng 08:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Complete Plain Words

Readers might like The Complete Plain Words, especially Chapter 6: "Avoiding The Superfluous Word". The book is a bit out-of-date, but it does have some funny examples. HLHJ (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Bleeding nails

From the 2009-2019 version of Subungual hematoma: "The bleeding comes from the (vascular) nail bed underlying the (avascular) nail plate"

Two parentheses are used to inform the reader that the nail bed has blood vessels in it, but the nail doesn't. Additionally, the sentence informs us that the nail bed is under the nail, but the main point is that the bleeding comes from the nail bed (the bit with the blood vessels), not the nail itself. While one must be careful not to inappropriately assume one's own cultural knowledge is global, human nails don't bleed. HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Something I just saw

I just saw this, which might be an example: [13]. Certainly, quite a change! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe it's not really what the essay is about, but it sure is an impressive amount of excess verbiage removal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Might fit in my upcoming essay, WP:SLASHANDBURN. E Eng 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmn, I hope that you provide instructions about how to slash and burn other editors, because I can think of some that I'd like to... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I really love this essay

It's totally an awesome essay and you don't see very many essays of this quality on Wikipedia, which contains several essays. - Scarpy (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)