More actions
m Replaced snd template |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
Words such as ''supposed'', ''apparent'', ''alleged'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although ''alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. ''So-called'' can mean ''commonly named, falsely named'', or ''contentiously named'', and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply ''called'' is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. | Words such as ''supposed'', ''apparent'', ''alleged'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although ''alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. ''So-called'' can mean ''commonly named, falsely named'', or ''contentiously named'', and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply ''called'' is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. | ||
Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of | Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of ''[[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]]'' may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided. | ||
=== Editorializing === | === Editorializing === | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
=== Euphemisms === | === Euphemisms === | ||
{{ | {{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center | ||
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... passed away, gave his life, eternal rest, make love, an issue with, collateral damage, living with cancer, ...'''</big> | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
The word ''died'' is neutral and accurate; avoid [[ | The word ''died'' is neutral and accurate; avoid [[Wikipedia:Euphemism|euphemisms]] such as ''passed away''. Likewise, ''have sex'' is neutral; the euphemism ''make love'' is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use ''issue'' for ''problem'' or ''dispute''; ''[[Wikipedia:Civilian casualties|civilian casualties]]'' should not be masked as ''[[Wikipedia:Collateral damage|collateral damage]]''. | ||
If a person ''has'' an affliction, or ''is'' afflicted, say just that; ''living with'' is a verbose softener. Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.<ref>The [[National Federation of the Blind]], for instance, opposes terms such as ''sightless'', in favor of the straightforward ''blind''. Similarly, the same group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as ''people with blindness'' for the simpler phrase ''blind people''; see [http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm93/brlm9308.htm#2 Resolution 93-01], National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.</ref> | If a person ''has'' an affliction, or ''is'' afflicted, say just that; ''living with'' is a verbose softener. Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.<ref>The [[Wikipedia:National Federation of the Blind|National Federation of the Blind]], for instance, opposes terms such as ''sightless'', in favor of the straightforward ''blind''. Similarly, the same group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as ''people with blindness'' for the simpler phrase ''blind people''; see [http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm93/brlm9308.htm#2 Resolution 93-01], National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.</ref> | ||
=== Clichés and idioms === | === Clichés and idioms === | ||
{{ | {{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center | ||
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... lion's share, tip of the iceberg, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...'''</big> | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
[[Cliché]] | [[Wikipedia:Cliché|Clichés]] and [[Wikipedia:Idiom|idioms]] are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. ''Lion's share'' is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as ''all, most'', or ''two-thirds''. The ''tip of the iceberg'' should be reserved for descriptions of [[Wikipedia:Iceberg|icebergs]]. If something is seen as wasteful excess, say that, not ''gilding the lily''. It's presumptuous to describe someone as ''taking the plunge''; just state their actions matter-of-factly. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, then the sentence should be reworded. [[Wikipedia:Wiktionary|Wiktionary]] has a lengthy [[wikt:Category:English idioms|list of English idioms]], some of which should be avoided. | ||
=== Relative time references === | === Relative time references === | ||
{{ | {{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center | ||
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, soon, since ...'''</big> | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{See also | {{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of#Precise language|Wikipedia:As of#Precise language]], and [[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Chronological items]]}} | ||
Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week? | Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week? - month? - year?<ref>In long-view sciences such as palaeontology, "[[Wikipedia:Recent|recent]]" may have meanings such as "within the last 11,700 years"—the [[Wikipedia:Holocene|Holocene]]—and will not go out of date.</ref> The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-17}}", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-65}}". | ||
When material in an article may become out of date, follow the [[Wikipedia:As of]] guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way. | When material in an article may become out of date, follow the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:As of]] guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way. | ||
Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources. Instead of "hamburgers are a traditional American food," say "the hamburger was invented in about 1900 and became widely popular in the United States in the 1930s."<ref>[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Original, authentic, and traditional|"Original", "traditional", "authentic", and other distracting terminology]]</ref> | Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources. Instead of "hamburgers are a traditional American food," say "the hamburger was invented in about 1900 and became widely popular in the United States in the 1930s."<ref>[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Original, authentic, and traditional|"Original", "traditional", "authentic", and other distracting terminology]]</ref> Though seasons differ between the northern and southern hemisphere, when describing game-related events in real-world terms, seasons in the northern hemisphere should be used as the default, as that is the location of CCP. | ||
=== Unspecified places or events === | === Unspecified places or events === | ||
{{ | {{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center | ||
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... this country, here, there, somewhere, sometimes, often, occasionally, somehow ...'''</big> | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones. It is better to use explicit descriptions, based on reliable sources, of when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying "In April 2012, Senator Smith somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%," say "In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which has been attributed to his new position on foreign policy."<sup>[1]</sup> Instead of saying "Senator Smith often discusses foreign policy in his speeches," say "Senator Smith discussed foreign policy during his election campaign, and subsequently during his victory speech at the State Convention Center."<sup>[2]</sup> | As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones. It is better to use explicit descriptions, based on reliable sources, of when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying "In April 2012, Senator Smith somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%," say "In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which has been attributed to his new position on foreign policy."<sup>[1]</sup> Instead of saying "Senator Smith often discusses foreign policy in his speeches," say "Senator Smith discussed foreign policy during his election campaign, and subsequently during his victory speech at the State Convention Center."<sup>[2]</sup> | ||
=== Person or office? === | === Person or office? === | ||
It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017. | It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Wikipedia:Barack Obama|Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017. | ||
* {{!xt|President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court}} – No, whoever is president at the time does. | * {{!xt|President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court}} – No, whoever is president at the time does. | ||
* {{xt|[[President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true. | * {{xt|[[Wikipedia:President George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true. | ||
* {{xt|The President nominated [[John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear. | * {{xt|The President nominated [[Wikipedia:John Roberts|John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear. | ||
* | * '''The guest list included [[Wikipedia:Charles, Prince of Wales|Charles, Prince of Wales]]''' – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with [[Wikipedia:Charles I of England|Charles I of England]], Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely. | ||
* {{!xt|Former President [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction | * {{!xt|Former President [[Wikipedia:Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Wikipedia:Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction '''then-President Nixon''' is usually superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between different periods of Nixon's career. | ||
=== Neologisms and new compounds === | === Neologisms and new compounds === | ||
[[Wikipedia:Neologism|Neologisms]] are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources. | |||
Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding | Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[Wikipedia:WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding ''-ism'' to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established. | ||
== Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities == | == Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities == | ||
{{ | {{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Offensive material|Wikipedia:Offensive material]]}} | ||
[[ | EVE University's [[EVE University Rules#Code of Conduct|Code of Conduct]] and the UniWiki's [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] encompass the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the [[Wikipedia:WP:V|original source]]. Language that is [[Wikipedia:Vulgarity|vulgar]], [[Wikipedia:Obscenity|obscene]], or [[Wikipedia:Profanity|profane]] should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic. | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[Wikipedia:Article titles]] | * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia:Article titles]] | ||
* [[ | * [[UniWiki:Manual of Style#Subset terms|UniWiki Manual of Style:Avoiding redundant subset terms]] | ||
* [[wikt:Category:English idioms|List of English idioms on Wiktionary]] | * [[wikt:Category:English idioms|List of English idioms on Wiktionary]] | ||