Is this really a valid Wiki Fixup Project? They are mainly about fixing the infrastructure of wiki: stub sorting and double redirects. The other projects are to do with highlighting missing or woefully short articles. This seems to be the imposing one person's preferred style across Wiki. I know that one person's style is a broadly agreed on, respected and used style but I notice some of the first words of the article are "an American English writing style guide". I welcome the correction of misused words which are mentioned in such works and the elimination of prolixity, the current main thrust of the project, is usually a good idea. But to make this into a project where people are likely to pop in, replace a couple of words with one, probably without reading the whole article, seems to me to be disruptive to articles. When obvious grammar and spelling problems are improved, there is no problem but introducing preferred grammar, style or variant spelling without contribution to material detail should be resisted. MeltBanana 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Note that Google's search index is probably not updated as frequently as we might like, so "fixed" pages will keep showing up as "needing fixing." It might be better to operate off a list of pages that need fixing, and cross them off as they are completed. -- Beland 02:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
"Others, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, consider almost all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether they result in immediate harm to their followers." doesn't read right. I don't believe it's acceptable to generally replace "whether or not" with "whether".--Prosfilaes 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that 'prior to' should be replaced with 'before', or the best-parsing equivalent. I'd like to think that we could push the phrase into obsolescence. mat_x 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Is a revert battle really the most constructive way to run a project? It has certainly put me off of it. There have been at least two requests to discuss the U.S. English concern that have been ignored. I'm not persuaded that is the primary objection to exalting Strunk & White as the unimpeachable pinnacle of style, but it does seem to have exposed the project's bias (as if the name weren't enough). Beland's approach above seems much more sensible. Squib 19:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"seeing that" and its barbaric cousin "being that" can generally be replaced by "since". --(an unlogged-in User:Angr at 09:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC))
In general this is a great idea. The suggested improvements will improve most articles. It's little different than a human editor going through your article with a red pen. There are certain well established readability improvements applicable to most cases. This does not change the writer's original intent, nor infringe on his creativity.
Writers tend to be too wordy. Conciseness promotes good clear writing. This is especially appropriate in reference materials; Wikipedia isn't a novel.
Ideally Elements of Style should be applied by the writer as the article is composed. However it's possible to edit/replace specific phrases if done carefully.
In addition to those already stated, here's one more:
"There is no doubt but that" -> replace with "no doubt", or "doubtless" Joema 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed this from Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects as it needs a better list. The Google index is rarely updated and it isn't easy to fix the problem. r3m0t talk 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Replace with the simple Because? In general, Yes, but the objection really is to the the fact that part. The impression is given that owing to is not a useful and precise phrase. I'd say the real problem is with the causative use of Due to.--shtove 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to remember the exact rules for "due to" so have just changed it to because in general. I find this makes the writing more simple and gutty anyhow. Also, actually creating acceptible uses of "due to" often forces the use of nominalizations and non-human actors. A Red Schoolhouse no-no. For instance, above we have "the loss" being the subject instead of the team losing. ;)
I could search the database dump for these phrases, that is if this project is still active? Martin 13:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put this so I'm putting it here. I've read numerous articles and been very frustrated with a common practice of linking basic terms to wiki articles, whereas it would be proper to link the more complex subject at hand.
Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a [[UFO]] doomsday [[cult]] and their increased [[proselytization]] after the leader's prophecy failed.
UFO, cult, and proselytization are linked. Why should those terms be linked? I can understand linking proselytization as it's a lesser known term, however in this context I would expect a link to the specific cult mentioned. I could care less to know all about UFO's or cults in general. I'm reading about a psychology subject here... not Art Bell.
I haven't compiled a list so I don't have more examples, but I've seen this in many pages from the main page to obscure pages.
Here's some made-up examples to explain my point:
Ex. 1
... in the Library of Congress ...
should be
... in the Library of Congress ...
because the reader is not looking up "libraries" or "Congress," but the "Library of Congress."
Ex. 2
... the Ford escort was discontinued ...
should be
... the Ford escort was discontinued ...
Again.. This is HIGHLY irritating. You should try emphasize that this is bad style or if you have done so, make it more clear.
--216.21.215.250 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
just googled into the Railroad switch
so I have signed in as a newbie
the text reads like a machine translation of standard russian engineerign work or encyclopedia
should the edits be based on UK or USA terminology
in a way it would be a pity to clean it up :-)
Hugh W
"being that" --> replace with "since"
should read
"being that" --> replace with "because"
"Since" is a measurement of time, such as, "I haven't seen him since Sunday."
"Because" is a reason why, such as, "I haven't seen him because he's been busy with work."
Someone who incorrectly uses the phrase "being that," such as "I haven't seen him being that he's been busy with work" means "because" he's been busy with work.
It is worth noting that "it is worth noting that" can safely be removed. If something is not worth noting, you do not note it - so it's quite superfluous. I note from google that Wikipedia has around 700 instances of "it is worth noting that". Should they not all be removed? jguk 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't this phrase be replaced with "since" or "because" or "due"? There's lots of occurances.
This page agrees. However, it does not give an alternative for this particular phrase.
In especial the expression the fact that should be revised out of every sentence in which it occurs. 81.227.114.40 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful when using The Elements of Style. This is an old-school prescriptivist book of the type where the authors didn't find it necessary to do any scientific work on actual language to base their rules on. It contains good advice, some reasonable advice that is more a matter of personal preferences, and some advice that is so outrageously bad that they don't even follow it in the same paragraph. A much more scientific work, and much more in the (open, rather than authoritarian) spirit of the wiki, is Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage.
As an example, they say "use the active voice", although they realise that it would be insane to prohibit passive voice completely (as some prescriptivists do). They continue: "Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is or could be heard." (My italics.)
Another example for advice that is plain wrong, and dangerous in the context of this project, is their prohibition of singular "they". [1]
Following Strunk & White blindly can lead to unnecessary tension when editors replace good prose by other good prose, or even by bad prose. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I see there is a little bit of debate about whether to use "former" as "former American senator" or "American former senator". I could not find a WP style guide that shows our preference, if any. Does anyone know if strunk & white has a guideline on this, and would we follow its lead?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)