Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles Information & Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles Links at HealthHaven.com

This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

WikiProject Help

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Help, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the help system on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Tense of inanimate objects

I started thinking about this after I changed the introductory tense of parallel motion from "the parallel motion was" to the "the parallel motion is" on the grounds that an invention or mechanism doesn't cease to exist just because it's old. I'm now wondering about other articles and I'm seeing a marked lack of consistency here. I looked at various articles about discontinued cars: "The DeLorean DMC-12 is a sports car" while "The Ford Probe was a coupe." Is there a consensus about this? Are there guidelines about this issue anywhere on Wikipedia? Thanks, Ce1984 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the guideline was to use present tense. In any case present tense is the simplest for anyone trying to read English as a second language and I try to use it most of the time. -- Horkana (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] tense of speech

Should we refer to speeches in the present tense, or the past tense? The section on WP:TENSE currently refers only to fiction, and at least some speeches are not fictional :-).

I feel that non-fictional speeches and books also "exist in a kind of perpetual present tense".

This was drawn to my attention when I saw the 2008 State of the Union Address edited to convert it from the future tense to the past tense. Currently it claims

The 2008 State of the Union Address was a speech given by...

which rubs me the wrong way.

It was a speech? Pray tell, what is it now?

I would prefer

The 2008 State of the Union Address is a speech that was given by... (the speech itself is in the perpetual present tense)

but I would also be satisfied with

The 2008 State of the Union Address was given by... (a particular delivery of the speech, in the past, in the past tense)

The first sentence in the Wikipedia articles of a few arbitrarily chosen examples from the List of speeches:

The Beatitudes is the beginning portion of ..
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" is a famous quotation attributed to Patrick Henry ...
1797 State of the Union Address: John Adams' First State of the Union Address was delivered ...
The House Divided Speech was an address given by Abraham Lincoln ...
The Gettysburg Address is the most famous speech of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln ...
The 'Fourteen Points' were listed in a speech delivered by President Woodrow Wilson ...
We shall fight on the beaches is a common title given to a speech delivered by Sir Winston Churchill ...
The Quit India speech is a speech made by Mahatma Gandhi ...
There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom is the title of a famous lecture given by physicist Richard Feynman ...
"I Have a Dream" is the popular name given to the historic public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., ...
"Ich bin ein Berliner" ("I am a Berliner") is a quotation from a June 26, 1963 speech by U.S. President John F. Kennedy ...

Most of these seem to support the idea that even non-fictional speeches "exist in a kind of perpetual present tense". Should the remaining ones in the past-tense be "corrected" to the present tense? Or is there some reason Wikipedia should use the past tense to refer to some (or all) speeches? How should we update WP:TENSE to also include speeches?

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this "perpetual present tense" the same as the historical present? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over tone

There is debate here Talk:Film_noir#Tone_issues over tone in an article. Perhaps those interested in such a topic can give their input.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TRADUCCIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO

Hola, podrian traducir este artículo al idioma español?, me sería muy útil su ayuda.

Gracias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.251.79 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Véase es.wikipedia.org por favor. - Dan (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Be concise" (etc)

Unusually for a quotation from Strunk, the one in the article ("Vigorous writing is concise....") isn't fatuous. I even agree with it. But then:

The ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of 2008". Wikipedia "grammar bots" will replace these types of expressions with correct wording.

Ugh.

For a start, how about The best way to report the current state is "as of 2008"?

Presumably "these types of expressions" -- Does this perhaps mean "this type of expression" or "these expressions"? -- are "'at the present time' or 'currently'", rather than "as of 2008". If so, then there's nothing unconcise about "currently", so I don't know why it's mentioned in this section; but that little point aside, if some grammar bottie is anyway going to convert such expressions into "as of 2008", then why is the reader being told to write "as of 2008"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the puzzle is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:As of. Result was "no consensus"; I wasn't successful in getting people to take a stand one way or the other. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

"Punctuation marks that appear in the article should only be used per generally accepted practice."

Was this one of the winning entries at the Annual Circular Logic Contest? I'm sure someone will come along and explain what it means, but as it's written in the article, it's entirely baffling. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FOG Index

I also posted this on the science portal discussion page, so I appollogize for the spam.

I had an idea but I don't know how to implement it. I've noticed that a great deal of the articles have very high FOG Index, for example the LTP article has a FOG index of 21, while normal people with no understanding of the material generally best understand the scientific article when it has a FOG index of 12. Is there anyway to encourage the writers to use smaller sentences with exactly one idea (not two or three). You can try out the FOG index calculator if you like [1], but here are some results I found for these articles (I just looked at their intro paragraphs)

Electricity FOG index=21
Cancer FOG index=19
Physics FOG index=18
Action Potential FOG index=17
Synapse FOG index=16

I think it will greatly simplify articles if we limit our sentences to one idea only, and thereby, reduce our FOG index. Paskari (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "recent" and "to date" in articles

I have come across a few articles that use the term "recent" to refer to the placement of an event in time. I have been unable to find a recommendation about this in any FAQ about article writing. When an article states something like, "New standards have recently been put in to effect, requiring..." or "Recent discoveries have revealed that..." the reader is left with a vague idea of when something happened and cannot compare the stated fact with other events in a timeline. Shouldn't the use of "recent" be discouraged? I'll also question the use of "to date" as found in this article: "Out of the 1,400 plus films mixed in SDDS, only 97 of them to date have been mixed to support the full 8 channels"MRJayMach (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Recent" will inevitably become false and will need to be changed. This means unnecessary work, which isn't good. A real print encyclopedia would not use terms like "recently" or "currently" as the book on the shelf would look very silly after time, they should be used very sparingly if at all. The version of this article as of January 2009 goes some way to addressing this matter. -- Horkana (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interview style

I've come across articles written in a non-encyclopedic style separate from the already-covered essay, promotional, resume, and autobiographical forms. This if the interview form. See the current version of Zebra & Giraffe for an example. I think it would be useful to have a cleanup template for articles of this nature, to guide the author, and to address it explicitly in the guidelines.

As the Zebra & Giraffe article (acknowledged from the outset to be an interview, originally with the author's byline), an interview form is the second-hand equivalent of the essay or personal reflection. The article purports to be about the band but, being an interview with the band's founder, it has four significant faults:

It's really mostly about the founder, with a great deal of detail about his background.

It's filled with quotations from the founder, making the article essentially his personal reflection.

None of the quotations are referenceable; the article itself is the primary source for these quotations.

Much of the information presented directly rather than as quoted is still likely drawn from the interview and is therefore unreferenceable, and it may even incorporate substantial synthesis on the part of the writer.

Thus, the interview format, like the autobiography or the essay, presents a distinct composition of issues relating to style, tone, objectivity, original research, referenceability, and so on, and I think it would be useful to address it explicitly in the guidelines and create an appropriate template to guide users.

Thoughts? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a tone issue or something else?

See Revolutionary etude. Yes, Chopin himself. I read carefully and I stumbled on much feared but essential. Ehm...does THIS belong into a WP article? Or should it, at all? -andy 85.176.226.145 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move discussion regarding bold in opening sentence to wp:Lead section?

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Who's on first?. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bluelinking in headings

Can somebody clarify what bluelinking is in the "Headings" subsection? It seems like wikipedia jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.22.44 (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluelinking is what I just did to the heading of this section. It's a link to a real page, in contrast to a redlink like this one to New Article, a nonexistent page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and to User:Butwhatdoiknow for editing the article to make it clear -- 72.140.22.44 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bluelink: Wikipedia:Help, as is the word "headings" in tthe header of this section. This is a redlink: non-existant-article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expand WP:TOPIC ?

Over at WT:NOR, there's been a long debate over whether to change the requirement that sources must be directly related to the article topic, directly refer to the article topic. Those who are pushing for the change argue that the current wording allows off-topic sources, and hence off-topic statements and WP:SYN. I and some others have argued that the problem is not with the sources, but rather with the off-topic statements themselves. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to expand on WP:TOPIC so that the requirement to stay on topic becomes more robust. lk (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weird sentence

This sentence is bizarre, and I'm removing it because I've never heard of it and it's almost impossible to follow: "Try to bridge each sentence with the sentence before it by using an idea or word that appears in both sentences." —Werson (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm that makes sense to me. It's talking about transitions between sentences (and, in turn, paragraphs), to ensure prose flows well. I see why you felt it was unclear though. Changing it to "... that appeared in the preceding sentence." improves it slightly. Whitehorse1 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference library category

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of sections?

Is there any guidance on how to decide what order sections should be in? In particular, is there any standard on where the "history" section should be? The Cricket article cited as a good example has it at the end, which I support, on the basis that that isn't the first things most readers will want to see, but other think that chronological order makes sense and the history should come first.

Thanks Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid peacock and weasel terms

This example is given at the bottom of this section:

Some critics of George W. Bush have said he has low intelligence.
Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush. In it, he asked, "George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?".

Couldn't we use something with a less controversial POV?
PS. I don't know how to link to a section yet, so you'll have to be creative in going back to it, sorry. J-puppy (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My recipe: To link to a section, try to reach the paragraph by clicking in the article's index (between intro and paragraphs) and then copy paste from your browser's address bar. Nicolas1981 (talk)

[edit] What is the "Canadian hip hop" article about ?

The Canadian hip hop article's first sentence just says that it "was first established in the 1980s", but it fails to actually explain what the article is about. Is it about a new kind of hip hop that people refer to as "Canadian hip hop" ? If so, I think the article should start with something like this:

Canadian hip hop is a kind of hip hop originated in Canada.

Or maybe the article is just about "Hip hop in Canada" ? That's unfortunately not clear, because the article breaks the First sentence content guideline. It is a general problem with many Wikipedia articles. What do you think about this ? Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Four paragraph lead section

The article suggests a lead section be no more than four paragraphs. Is the lead in not more like a summary, a taste of what is to come? It would make more sense to me if the article suggested Lead section should be no more than one paragraph, with four sentences or thereabouts. A long lead in makes it more likely that large chunks of information will need to be repeated in the main article. Where did the idea of the Lead In being so long come from? Anyone else agree the recommendation should be changed to advise a shorter Lead In? This article for example doesn't have an especially long lead in, you could consider the list equivalent to a second paragraph. -- Horkana (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Examplefarms

{{Examplefarm}} links to this page, but the reason for doing so is not apparent to most users.

I propose that we add a section under "Information style and tone" that addresses the need to describe subjects. Specifically, I think this page needs something that addresses the need to make general statements about the subject instead of providing a long list of examples and then hoping that the reader can synthesize the examples into a description. Perhaps something like this would be helpful:

Describe the subject
Use direct, declarative sentences to describe the subject. Use a general topic sentence to introduce a broad concept, and then expand it by adding detailed sentences that describe each relevant point. A well-written description is preferable to, and can replace, a list of examples. While providing one example may be occasionally appropriate, for concision, avoid giving examples that should be evident to the reader from the description.

Does this seem like an appropriate addition? I welcome improvements to the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] News style

About the section on putting important information first, #News style. While it is about being able to cut a newspaper article from the bottom for space reasons, it's also to bring interest high in the article itself because many people don't bother to read to the end, even so they shouldn't have to wade through it to get significant information, expecting to find out what they need early on. Could something brief along these lines be added to that paragraph? Just saying because don't know protocol here. Happy to do it if that's the way, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should be bold in this instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Julia Rossi (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tense for reality TV?

I came to this article through WP:TENSE, hoping to get information about what tense to use in articles about reality TV. I understand using present tense in articles about fake people in fake settings and fake stories, but what about reality TV where they are real people in real settings with real stories? I just edited this section, but I immediately reconsidered whether I should have used past tense in the section. I can see both tenses being appropriate and I can't figure out whether I should go through and make them present tense or keep them in past tense. Help? --13² 15:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Real things happening to real people = past tense. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Exception to Avoiding Peacock and Weasel Terms

To me, it feels that the exception could still easily be done without weasel words: "Before the time of Nicolaus Copernicus, common conception throughout the world held that the sun revolved around the Earth." However, since I'm by no means an experienced wikipedia editor, so this is just a random observation to be taken or ignored. --67.80.64.172 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that (a) is a truly awful sentence and (b) doesn't solve the problem - "common conception throughout the world held" means the same as "most people believed" - it's just longer and more tortuous. To make this a non-example you would have to cite a source such as a pre-Copernican newspaper article saying "as surely as the sun rotates the earth" or something. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TENSE regarding wiped or unrecorded TV series

Occasionally, people change the tense of DuMont Television Network series, from "was" to "is". Since these programs (mostly) do not exist anymore, I feel these changes are inappropriate, especially on non-fictional subjects. WP:TENSE seems to cover writing about fictional subjects, not writing about real television series. While there may be fictional aspects in a television series (such as characters, plot, etc.), some of these "was->is" alterations are occuring on articles with no fictional elements whatsoever, and on series which did exist, but no longer do. Before I mass revert these well-meaning changes, though, I'd like a greater consensus, or at least feedback from other editors. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Metalanguage

I like this guideline. In one sentence it enjoins us to "avoid jargon" and overly technical terminology out of consideration for the reader; in the very next sentence, it goes on about "metalanguage". MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative present and other verb tense issues

What are Wikipedia consensus or guidelines concerning verb tenses in normal article text. I'm specifically concern with the use of the narrative present but would be happy with other general guidance since there doesn't appear to be much at WP:MOS or WP:MOSBETTER.

My own view is that, unlike with fiction, the narrative present should be used very sparingly if ever in encyclopedia text. ("The tone...should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate.") It's fine in the "In the news" section on the main page but should be eschewed elsewhere. Even list sections such as that in Music in 2003: Events should use the simple past. Even news sources only use the narrative present for the titles, not for the whole text.

Another example, the Writing of Principia Mathematica article uses both the narrative present and the simple past when describing what certain people wrote in their letters. I think this article should be cleaned up to correlate these tenses. What think the rest of you? — AjaxSmack 01:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the narrative present may seem slightly odd for an encyclopedia, but would not want to be too prescriptive and say that it should never be used. There may well be situations that I cannot think of right now where it is appropriate. Nonetheless, the tense used should be consistent throughout an article. To me, this is more important. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I agree that consistency is the most important principle, but I agree with AjaxSmack that an encyclopedia should strike a more formal tone, with the exception explained in WP:TENSE. I have been wondering about another construction that I see often, for which I do not know the name. In this construction, editors use the conditional tense to explain events that occur after a fixed point in the past. "John Brown would go on too become Prime Minister....". This construction strikes me as being either an example of journalese, or at least as being more complex tan really necessary, and should probably be avoided for the sake of readers who are reading English as a second language. Ground Zero | t 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase in your posting is a good example of why it is perhaps not a good idea to be too prescriptive. Here is a passage from one of the articles I worked on, "Robert Hues":

Hues graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree on 12 July 1578, having shown marked skill in Greek. He would later give advice to the dramatist and poet George Chapman for his 1616 English translation of Homer, and Chapman referred to him as his "learned and valuable friend".

The reason why Hues' graduation in 1578 and Chapman's 1616 book are mentioned together, thus requiring the use of the conditional tense, is that Hues' skill in Greek is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. (I suppose one way of rephrasing would be to simply say, "He later gave ...".) Similarly, there may well be cases where use of the narrative present is appropriate. Nonetheless, I would not object to a guideline advising editors to avoid the use of the narrative present and continuous tense, as long as it does not prohibit their selective use. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to write "He later gave...." because I tihnk it is simpler and clearer. But I agree with you that this should be a guideline about avoiding use of this construction, and not a prohibition. I think that is consistent with the spirit of the Manual of Style, which does not pretned to cover all potential circumstances. If someone can make a reasonable case for deviating from the general rules, they should be allowed to do so. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the input here. I would like to clarify that I wouldn't favor a rule against certain verb tenses, just a style recommendation for what to usually use. Verb usage doesn't appear to be codified in any Wikipedia guideline yet. If I am worng, please point me to the right one.

I am very much of one mind with User:Ground Zero when he stated that a sentence "strikes me as being either an example of journalese, or at least as being more complex than really necessary, and should probably be avoided for the sake of readers who are reading English as a second language." While the language used should not be reduced to Simple English, Wikipedia should avoid unnecessary stylistic flourishes that could serve to obfuscate the material being presented.

Is there any support for adding a line or two to a relevant guideline concerning this issue? If so, what and where? — AjaxSmack 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This guideline ("Wikipedia:Writing better articles") seems as good a place as any. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding article tense

A question about which tense to place articles about religious writings has recently been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Tense?. I'm not at all sure how policy and guidelines relate to this matter, and would welcome any sort of response or clarification. I have a feeling that this might apply to several articles and subjects. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Television Tense is Simply Wrong

"TJ Hooker is a television show" vs. "TJ Hooker was a television show". The latter is correct. TJ Hooker IS a character in the television series TJ Hooker, or Captain Kirk IS a character on the television series Star Trek, but Star Trek WAS a television show.

This mistake is a widely, robotically enforced mistake on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The shows persist as recorded works, they have not vanished. Would we even think of writing "Great Expectations was a novel"? Only live-to-air shows (mostly from the 1950s) that were not recorded would sensibly use past tense.LeadSongDog come howl 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that shows not recorded or not preserved should use past tense. I also think this should be codified in the guideline somewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Audience

Wikipedia:Audience redirects here, but it is a matter not explicitly discussed. Who am I trying to write for? Globbet (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It correctly redirects to the section "Provide context for the reader", where audience is discussed. See the para that begins "Avoid using jargon". It is clear that each article has a unique audience. LeadSongDog come howl 14:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know where it redirects. I just don't find anything at the destination that is not obvious to me. I agree that each article will tend to attract its own range of readers, but what I think is lacking is a broad-brush guideline on how to pitch the 'average' article. In general, and with a mildly esoteric topic, should I aim to be understood by any bright 12 year-old, an average adult with a vague interest, an amateur enthusiast, or a PhD in the subject? To retort that there is no such thing as an 'average' article would be unhelpful. In journalism, I am told, you should not assume that readers are stupid, and you should not assume that they know anything. Globbet (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTGUIDE point 7 may be helpful. "Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." WP:JARGON may also help. LeadSongDog come howl 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents