Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Only, just

I don't see any problem with the WP:Avoid explanation of the word "just" but what I find difficult to grasp is that the word "only" can be used in proper context in the technical world to imply that there is no other choice but this seems to run counter to your policy.

'Dubious use' examples are listed, but there are no examples of where it might be allowed.

Below are few examples which should be allowable:

1) After powering on, every Windows PC starts sending out Browser Master packets (unless that service has been disabled) but "only" one PC will be elected as the actual Master Browser.

2) LSA 'Type-5' packets are "only" generated by ASBRs, not by other types of OSPF routers.

3) LSA 'Type-7' packets are "only" broadcast within a single NSSA.

4) There are "only" 2 numerals used in Binary notation... "0" and "1".

I'm sure there are plenty more examples, but rather than soften or change your stance on the word "only", I think that 'allowable examples' should be included in your WP:Avoid explanation. Whether you use the samples I provided above or make your own doesn't matter, but examples of where use of the word "only" can be used in proper context is desired. wbenton (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Gnevin, would you let us please try to tighten this? If people really dislike it once we're done, the old version's in the history so nothing's lost. But as it stands, it really is very wordy, to the point where I doubt it's read much. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You go right ahead, Slim. Gnevin has been warned—three reverts in eight minutes is completely unacceptable.—DCGeist (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a MOS, the implied CON is for the current version. If someone reverts you should discuss it not revert until the user who opposes you falls foul of WP:3RR and then carry on regardless, discussion is clearly required here . Your approach is extremely heavy hand and is not helpful Gnevin (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the changes in the history thank you. But I think as someone has objected to the changes they should be discussed here on this talk page before they are implemented. As the box at the top says "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Now it may have been discussed elsewhere, but at the very least there should be a link to that discussion on this talk page so that other editors can make an informed decision on the changes. Could someone please list the prose and cons of the two version and get a consensus for the changes BEFORE making them?-- PBS (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the obstructionism hard to believe, when we have highly skilled editors who know what they're talking about putting work into rationalising this unholy little mess of interrelated, overlapping MoS pages. Please do not obstruct this much-needed program. Tony (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If editors "know what they're talking about ..." where are they talking about it? -- PBS (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS, a few people have been working on tightening this on User:SlimVirgin/Words to avoid, because the current version is hard to read and not correct in places. It's important for a number of reasons that the writing on Manual of Style pages be good and tight. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

<-- SV I would have thought that after the great attribution fisasco, the way to introduce changes is do to discuss changes on this talk page an make them incrementally. In my humble opinion going away an writing a new page and then trying to implement it, without first discussing what are large changes to a page on the talk page of the page is a recipe of for discord and not consensus. However now that you are here I would like to hear from Gnevin why (s)he objects to the changes you made. -- PBS (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As tagged at the top of this page, primary discussion has been centralized on the main MoS Talk--sorry if that wasn't clear to you. The "going away" happened when the work Slim and I were doing here made Gnevin sad. But fear not, we're about to return. Incrementalism has lead the MoS family of pages to its current state: a notorious morass. That's no longer on. A little discord is likely to be productive. More of the same-ol' here is most certainly not.—DCGeist (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you ruin your good work by personal nonsense like I were doing here made Gnevin sad. Put the changes live, I've no issue at the moment Gnevin (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to tag it on {{CENT}} Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Zionism

Per Talk:Rothschild_family#.22Zionism.22_and_why_it_is_not_appropriately_used_here. Does anyone want to weigh in on whether the word "Zionism" may or may not be a "word to avoid"? NickCT (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, where it's talking about the specific political movement, the word should be fine. But where it's used to label people for being perceived as Israeli, Jewish, or in favor of Israel or Jews (as in the epithet used in parts of the world), obviously not. It would be the equivalent of calling everything that comes from the United States "imperialism". Where it's a matter of opinion, e.g. "so-and-so is a well-known Zionist", that's a question of fact and sourcing, like attaching any other political group label. A few people are Zionists (by self-identification and/or general consensus among sources), most are not, and there is a population of people, institutions, and things that share something in common but aren't a proper part of the group. No strong opinion about this, just working through the issue. Is there a particular place where this question is arising? What's going on out in the Wikipedia article world with this? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon - Re "Is there a particular plac.........." See the link I provided above.

We basicly have some editors arguing that the word has a negative connatation, and hence should be a label we avoid applying to people.

Thanks for the opinion. I mostly agree. The word should definately not be used as an epithet. You might want to look at this specific example being debated. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM needs work

I was discussing this with another user over at the discussion on WP:MODLANG, and he directed me here. The euphemism section needs to be reworked a bit. A euphemism for death would be something like perished, passed away, deceased, brought the farm, kicked the bucket, or something of that ilk. I don't know how many articles I've gone over (I've only got 150 or so edits, but I was around as an IP before) where I've had to clean out the word perished (including one featured article, the Terra Nova Expedition). Besides being a personal annoyance (even when referring to relatives, I always use some variation of the word dead), these are unencyclopedic, and can be harder to spot than "died tragically". The current "euphemisms" in WP:EUPHEMISM such as "died tragically" and "horrible death" aren't euphemisms, they're WP:NPOV problems, and should be categorized as such. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, "perished" and "deceased" aren't euphemisms, they're legitamite (if slightly more poetic) synonyms. "Passed away" is euphamistic, but is so common that it is almost purely idiomatic in nature. (The other examples are truly euphemisms.) While sticking to "dead" and its variants is a straightfoward example of plain English, I see no real reason to eliminate legitamite synonyms. oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the synonyms- I was probably up a bit too late last night, I don't know how I made a mistake like that. In the last sentence, I meant to put "just" before euphemisms. Anyways, I still think that things like "perished" or "deceased" would be worth mentioning (if not here than elsewhere) because they're not encyclopedic- we aren't writing obituaries here, and there's no reason to soften up reality (we wouldn't say that Princess Leia "fell for Han Solo" or "joined Han Solo in blissful matrimony", we'd say "she married him" or something like that). I also think the true euphemisms like "died horribly" should be more directly mentioned as being NPOV issues as well, as the current wording is not particularly clear on that. Not only will that be more accurate, it will give a bit more incentive to clean them up. It's getting really annoying finding things like "the entire expedition perished on their return from the Pole" in featured articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for this style guide

A proposed replacement for this style guide can be found here Gnevin (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The area I am particularly interested in is the section on terrorism, the proposed replacement is nothing like detailed enough. -- PBS (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)