Wikipedia talk:The problem with elegant variation

Technical writing

Elegant variation has drawbacks in general writing as you explain. The problem is more serious in technical writing, where the use of synonyms can create invalid distinctions between concepts. Technical writers are (supposed to be) taught to avoid this problem. As with technical articles, Wikipedia articles need clarity more than elegance. -Arch dude (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - and in fact I worked as a technical writer for a few years. Popcornduff (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Non Personal Elegant Variation

By which I mean the use of variation other than that referring to people. Obviously your early examples give cases where it had clearly gone wrong, mainly by being taken to excess, but I feel that significant usage of elegant variation is usually beneficial. Clearly in subject/object cases it has an easier vulnerability to going wrong - I was taught to use it but default towards clarity as needed.

In any case, an interesting essay, but I feel that if you do a significant re-write at any stage, an expansion on "non-personal" EV would be intriguing to read. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Can you give an example of beneficial "non-personal" elegant variation? Popcornduff (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For ease I'll just grab the one in your first line - blaze instead of fire. If I was writing a paragraph that would require me to write fire more than a couple of times then blaze might well make it in instead.

With regards to beneficial, I'd view any change where drab repetitive language is reduced without a significant disruption to clarity. (Clearly that exact boundary would vary slightly depending on what was being written and who it was being written to) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Of the same name"

moved discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"Of_the_same_name"

In film + novel articles sharing the same title, it is common practice to short-hand linking with [[novel title|of the same name]] (OTSN). OTSN is not always the best solution:

• OTSN is often more words and syllables than the title itself. OTSN is not always short-hand, sometimes just the opposite.
• It obfuscates the title behind a pipe, making it less clear to the reader who has to think through an editorial phrase that isn't necessary.
• OTSN does make grammatical sense if the film title and book title are used in the same sentence to avoid duplication, but this is often not the case. Usually any mention of the novel title is hidden behind OTSN.
• OTSN is now so common on Wikipedia it has become a cliche; it is not done outside of Wikipedia to this extent, it is an English Wikipedia cultural artifact.

OTSN is used so often on Wikipedia (est. over 13,000 times), it would be appropriate to provide grammatical and editorial guidance on usage. There are correct times to use, but it's not mandatory and there should be some consideration it shouldn't always be used wherever a film and novel share the same title. The MOS might provide some guidance. -- GreenC 13:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your objections - it's definitely a "danger phrase" to me. I think it's an example of elegant variation, ie the dodgy substitution of words for fear of repetition (see my WP:ELEVAR essay). I don't think it's ever necessary, and instead would go for one of these:

• Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel by Michel Faber.
• Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber.

I don't think repeating the title is that clunky, personally. Popcornduff (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: WP:ELEVAR essay is very interesting. If you would like to add a special section for "of the same name" I would happily link to it in edit summaries when making corrective edits. -- GreenC 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: Sure. I've added a section about OTSN. Let me know what you think. Popcornduff (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Made some changes.. -- GreenC 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be suggesting that this wording never be used, which is how the current section comes across. The alternative suggestions here should just be for cases where there is a better solution than using this wording. That is not necessarily always going to be the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've softened it slightly (replaced "introduces problems" with "can introduce problems"), but as this is an essay about examples of bad elegant variation, I'm happy to keep it as an often problematic example. Popcornduff (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that the repetition in the second example is not clunky. It is the very soul of clunkiness. The first example is fine, although WP:EASTEREGG might point to "2000 novel of the same name" as being less surprising. I would very strongly suggest removing example 2 from the essay. Certainly the first example here should be the preferred alternate listed in the essay at the very least. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove the entire section, as it wasn't one of the things I had in mind when I wrote the essay. It was proposed by another editor and I broadly supported it, but it's attracting a lot of ire, clearly. Popcornduff (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely see how it could be overused by default... but I really find the repetition "solution" more problematic than the use of the purportedly offending phrase. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about which example you object to. Which one is it exactly? Popcornduff (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I find this one:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber

appalling. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the essay suggests that as a bad way to do it, and explains why. Does my recent edit appall you less? Popcornduff (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That helps... I think previously, because it was the first alternative given, it wasn't clear that it wasn't necessarily the best one—generally if someone is saying "don't do it like this" and follows that with "you could do it like this", I think the default assumption is that the alternative is acceptable. Or at least that is how I read it at first, clearly. I think it could be streamlined by simply skipping the "better but still has issues" version (where the title is repeated) and just going right to the "[year of publication] novel" version. But either way, the version now with the "You can write out the name (again) but that's clunky/awkward" intro is much clearer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Titular characters

The page currently [1] says

There's rarely any use in pointing out when something is titular. For example:

Batman Returns is a 1992 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton, based on the titular DC Comics character.

For reasons that surely must be obvious, I would think that Batgirl or Catwoman would be better examples of titular characters than is Batman, unless of course we take Groucho Marx's famous comment into account. EEng 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding: when following the Groucho link, look at the very bottom of the page. EEng 02:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I actually implemented it but reverted it for the moment because I want to find an example of a film or work that dosn't just have the character name as its title (as Catwoman does). Otherwise it just brings up other arguments of repetitive prose which isn't meant to be the point of the section (see the "Of the same name" debate). I'm sure good examples exist, but it's time for bed for me now... Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide if you're turning the titular tables on me. EEng 16:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, I sometimes think this place is just awash with complete tits. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The linked article suggests so many winking puns that it's positively dazzling. This could keep us in business for years. EEng 22:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Elegant Variation Hall of Fame

The monarch was impressed

Monarchs have been bred on the International Space Station.

• [2]: The crew of the helpless and doomed American ship cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea was called by the American commander on the scene "one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure." Making for the harbour mouth, the British ship's bow and stern alternately rose and plunged ... Believe it or not, all the bolded stuff refers to the same ship. BTW, the same article carries the hatnote For other ships with the same name, see HMS Calliope; I suppose we could rewrite it to say For titular ships, see HMS Calliope.
• [3] In 1901, still at the peak of his career, he performed his "Huntsman" sketch for Edward VII at Sandringham. The monarch was so impressed that Leno became publicly known as "the king's jester".
• [4]: The performance was a success and Little Tich returned every night, often accompanying his tin-whistle piece with impromptu dance routines. News of his performances spread, and he was soon signed up by the proprietor of the neighbouring Royal Exchange music hall, who bought his new signing a pair of clogs. The phrase his new signing refers to Little Tich. No kidding.
• (Not E.V. but needs to be parked somewhere for now, and since this page celebrates wretched, pretentious writing it's as good a place as any...) [5]: Prisoners failing to pay were declared defaulters by the prison crier, had their names written up in the kitchen, and were sent to Coventry. We are not making this up.
• The glasses Root wore to play Milton had lenses so thick that the actor had to wear contact lenses to see through them. [6]
• A memoir published by Alexandre Exquemelin, a former shipmate of Morgan's, accused the privateer of widespread torture and other offences; Morgan brought a libel suit against the book's English publishers and won, although the black picture Exquemelin portrayed of Morgan has affected history's view of the Welshman. [7] Everything in bold is the same person -- I think. It makes your head spin. EEng 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• She became Lady Beerbohm when Beerbohm married her privately on his death bed on 20 April 1956 to ensure that under Italian law she would inherit all his possessions. On the death of her husband in May 1956 Jungmann became his literary executor. [8] On first reading this makes it sound like she was a bigamist.

The novel

Another solution to this problem:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.

is to change the link text slightly:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.

Unlike "novel", "the novel" can't refer to novels in general. --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, this is actually exactly what I do most of the time in this situation, so I don't know why I didn't include it. Thanks for the suggestion. Added. Popcornduff (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether you put "the novel" or "novel" into the link text does not change anything. That is just text decoration and can be ignored by the reader. I simply ignore italics and the link text just gets interesting if I wanna click on it. The reader can also set up his browser that the links are displayed in a different way, for instance just blue without underscores. Or the text could be actually printed, then you may remove the links anyway. Or the reader is blind and uses a screen reader. And since I don't have a screen reader, I simply don't know what happens then. So also here I would include the title of the novel and leave it to the reader to figure out that it has the same name. -- Martin Gühmann (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Examples and other miscellany that need a parking place

I'm not sure that the "ludicrous" examples (elongated yellow fruit, etc.) add much to the essay, because they're not what you'll typically see in a WP article, and they distract from the main point.... --Macrakis (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I've wondered the same thing.

On the one hand, they are real, famous examples of elegant variation (google any article about the subject and "elongated yellow fruit" is mentioned). And the fact that they're so ludicrous is a good way to demonstrate the problem - it's easy to understand what's stupid about them. And they're also funny.

But on the other hand, as you say, they're so OTT that they're not really realistic examples for the purposes of Wikipedia. And the point is not that elegant variation is bad only in ludicrous examples such as that. The real problem is that it's just needless. So perhaps they're just distracting from the point like you say. Popcornfud (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that they're funny, but they sound rather dated -- does anyone today write "A load of bananas fell out of the back of the truck. The elongated yellow fruit caused havoc on the highway."? (Except maybe sports writers, but that's a genre in itself.) The cases we want to warn editors against are more prosaic. The examples given later in the article are, to me, much more compelling. --Macrakis (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly (or not), elevar of the "elegant yellow bananas" variety is alive and well - see the Second Mentions Twitter account for modern examples. But I agree with the downsides of including these examples, so if you want to try rewriting the lead without them, be my guest and we can discuss further if need be. Popcornfud (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

See what you think of my edit. By the way, it's worth reading pages 99-103 of A Slight Sense of Outrage, available for one-hour borrowing at the Internet Archive. --Macrakis (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• [9] "Murdering duo"
• Former and latter are way overused, and often a form of ELEVAR.
  • Not OK: Smith and Jones qualified for the 200-meter freestyle event, in which the former came in first and the latter third.
  • OK: Two groups of landowners were involved: those owning 200 acres or more, for at least 5 years and not as community property; and those owning 200 acres or more, either for less than 5 years or as community property. The former qualified for the exemption automatically; the latter were required to request a hearing.

EEng 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

We're in the New Yorker

From this piece, The Twitter Account That Collects Awkward, Amusing Writing:

On Wikipedia, in a contributor-discussion section of what has become the biggest collaborative-writing process in world history, you’ll find an instructive essay titled “The problem with elegant variation.” “Elegant variation distracts the reader, removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humour or muddled metaphors,” it says.

Instructive! Popcornfud (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! EEng 03:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Words describe

Given this sentence:

In the video McGillvary describes the hatchet blows with the words "Smash, Smash, Smash"

Is there a better way than "with the words" since it is self-evident words "describe"? GreenC 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In the video McGillvary describes the hatchet blows as "Smash, Smash, Smash" EEng 08:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Showing better ways?

My edits to this page to this effect have been reverted twice. I think it'd be good pedagogy teaching to show an example of a better version of the examples, and this seems like a good place to do it, although I could see a section at the bottom as acceptable as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Showing better ways is exactly what we should be doing. This page has always given better ways from its existence. . this looks like a case of "I don't like the examples" .. ok change the examples. -- GreenC 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As this page has grown, I've grown concerned that the lead section has become bloated. The lead started off as a simple definition of what elegant variation is, with some examples. The article then led into a case-by-case discussion of different kinds of elegant variation with advice on how to fix it. That to me is simple, readable and useful.

Since then, the lead has grown to include a long quote about the history of elegant variation. And now we want to offer examples of how to fix the examples of the elegant variation we used to define elegant variation. It's noble but I think it's OTT and bogs the essay down.

I just don't think that's what this essay should be about and it wasn't my intention when I created it. Instead I want to focus on teaching the reader to spot elegant variation on Wikipedia and how to fix it.

In other words, here's the strategy:

• Lead: Explain what elegant variation is, with a couple of examples.
• Section 1: Give an example of a kind of elegant variation common on Wikipedia and how to fix it.
• Section 2: Give another example of a different kind of elegant varation common on Wikipedia and how to fix it.
• Section 3: Give another example of a different kind of elegant variation common on Wikipedia and how to fix it.

Etc. Popcornfud (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A counterexample (?)

Too lazy to write it up now, but the following is an example where the variation (arguably) belongs: This description ...  is from Harlow's observations set down soon after the accident,​​ but Harlow‍—‌perhaps hesitant to describe his patient negatively while he was still alive—‌delayed publishing it until 1868, after Gage had died... EEng 08:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting example. I would say that's actually not a case of elegant variation.

If I'm interpreting it correctly, what's important isn't that he didn't want to describe Gage negatively while he was alive, but his patient. They're the same entity in this case, but that's the stress — it's in Gage's capacity as a patient that he didn't want to describe him negatively. I assume.

BTW, the lead sentence of that article is still absurdly, unreadably long and you should be terribly ashamed. Popcornfud (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to merge the simple english, and the english versions?

It seems we will do so. English has too much vocabulary, it needs to be pruned. --Kamil Hasenfeller (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Former, latter, aforementioned

@Popcornfud: "Aforementioned" is rarely necessary, and always a bit pompous. I've pruned it from a few articles. Do we want to say something about it here, although it isn't really elegant variation? --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's definitely on the list of danger words in my mind. But if it's not a case of elegant variation I don't think it belongs here.

I suppose we could create a new essay with commonly used words that don't add much value to articles, if we could generate enough examples. I'd sure love to encourage everyone to stop writing "the film" or "the game" etc thousands and thousands of times. Popcornfud (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll be happy to contribute to that article. The connection between "aforementioned" and this article is that it is used in similar cases to "latter", and in both cases, the solution is often to remove it entirely rather than to use something else. --Macrakis (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? Popcornfud (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell who is whose brother in Banište#Demographics. Can you? Here, "aforementioned" is being used to avoid repeating names (elegant variation), where the name would have been much clearer. --Macrakis (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, "aforementioned" in this case is definitely being used to avoid repeating the noun. That's an impenetrable paragraph and no mistake. After doing a random search for the word "aforementioned" on Wikipedia I've found a few similar examples so I might add something to the essay about it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm struggling to find a good, simple example to use. The problem is that most cases the word is just completely redundant rather than being used to replace a word. For example: Bentley won the Nottingham New Theatre award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in 2013. He found further success in 2014 when he won the award for a second time running. In 2015 he became a fellow of the aforementioned theatre. Popcornfud (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are different cases. Here are some that I've fixed recently, categorized by the type of correction:

• Elegant variation: just repeat the name [10] [11] [12]
• Just drop the word: [13] [14]
• Replace with "the/that/those": [15]
• Rewrite convoluted language: [16] [17] (bonus points for the unnecessary "said")
• The "aforementioned" thing wasn't in fact mentioned earlier: [18]

So although most cases are not elegant variation, some are. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Useful examples, thanks. I've integrated them into the essay. I'll add a link to WP:AFOREMENTIONED too so we can link to that in edit summaries if we want. Popcornfud (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"the said" works similarly: [19] [20] (pretty poor writing in general) --Macrakis (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's all in the game. EEng 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Repetitions of the subject matter

Repetitions of the subject-matter of an article like 'film' or 'game' - such as 'style' in an article on a mustache style - can force the hand of editors to resort to elegant variation. See Special:Diff/1195341071/1197283732: "bolsters the style", "groomed the style", "flaunted the style", "styled it", "donned the style", "maintained the style", "takes on the style". -- GreenC 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Another pointless "eponymous"

Why do writers think it necessary to say "eponymous" when both the eponym and the namesake are explicit? --Macrakis (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Variation causing confusion

@Cleter: Fowler mentions the case where the variation leads to confusion: are we talking about two different things? Some of his examples:

The Bohemian Diet will be the second Parliament to elect women deputies, for Sweden already has several lady deputies.

What is the difference between women and ladies?

There are a not inconsiderable number of employers who appear to hold the same opinion, but certain owners—notably those of South Wales—hold a contrary view to this.

Is this distinguishing between employers and owners?

An example of this I recently came across seems to contrast "will host matches" and "is set to host matches". Does "will" imply certainty while "is set to" imply a plan which may or may not be implemented? or that the stadium is prepared to host the matches although the decision to host them there hasn't been made? --Macrakis (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Not the same issue as the elevar debate, but I often write "set to", "scheduled to" etc instead of "will" to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL problems. Writing "Michael Jackson will perform at the London O2" turned out to be wrong, whereas "Michael Jackson is scheduled to perform at the London O2" is future-proof. Popcornfud (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood. But presumably this is true of both types of match in the Levi's case. So maybe both should be "is scheduled to". --Macrakis (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever phrasing is best for that particular circumstance, it definitely shouldn't be pointlessly swapped-and-chopped with variations for its own sake, which appears to have been the motivation for the edit based on the edit description. Popcornfud (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Compilation of examples

Probably not worth adding to the article, but this is egregious: [21] --Macrakis (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which company? [22] --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)