User:Adam37: Difference between revisions

It's Wednesday, 10 July, 2024.
There are 6,849,106 articles on Wikipedia. I have created 173 including redirects; of the redirects 18 have been deleted and none of the others. Just 0.4% of my edits been deleted or reversed.
If you have any issues or wish to discuss something, then please do leave a new message.

I love travel and geography in all permutations. I am a fan of the breadth of the English language and gladly give slightly greater than average leeway to alternate spellings and localisms, such as US spelling – and potentially jargon terms (where defined) – and informal terms where in step with an article's topic. My areas of expertise include grammar, syntax, modern hermeneutics, particularly connotations and hidden messages. Reasoned, where possible permanent summaries of concrete interesting facts stated are the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's policy dictates: where it is very notable for all people to know about an ongoing controversy then strive for two non-editorial style arguments or do not include it. Use tone of encyclopedias like Encarta/Encyclopedia Britannica's latest edition in every article, not just in major topics. Others go too far sometimes and insert pompous estate agent patter (Americans: realtors). Situated/located are totally redundant - see here - and I didn't write this global guidance. A settlement 'lies' on/by throughout an article only in archaic fantasies about forgotten kingdoms. Nor write "(it) nestles", is cosseted in or commands/dominates a landscape/view ‐ if a point is a panorama or semi-panorama write a brief subsection of landmarks on it, where a truly remarkable example. Try and include a negative critique/imminent threats/negativing factors if available. And people do not 'reside' throughout an article.

Motorways and cities should not be touted by road as 'five minutes/hours away' because it varies somewhat and can be subject to rapid change. Distance or railway stops/approx. time can be verifiable and notable, but get consensus.

(Think encyclopedia).

Many good editors assert wikipedia is not a travel guide; there is a happy medium between describing the nearest clear transport artery and, on the other hand, making an essay on splendid isolation or great transport links. Whether most people would sympathise/envy or not, places in an encyclopedia are not to be casually described as run-down, urban blight, stockbroker territory/belt, retirement country, best/worst place to live according to...(peacock and shunning). Avoid sweeping generalisations or one raft of cited opinions, writing in a biased way. Ideally confine newspapers' latest one-sided aspersions to a section in geography articles In film, fiction (or literature) and the media. News may be biased on complex subjects, fads and scares are its lifeblood. Those who have ready widely on a sub-topic or are from a community/business which is being discussed may be able to cite more pertinent facts. In general the less likely they are to hit the news in one fell swoop, the more academic such facts are likely to be.

I like many wikipedians fix or draw attention to vandalism of articles, nonsense articles, unreferenced bold claims and address controversy to keep a see WP:NPOV: Neutral Point of View; discussing all deletions with due process. For more information on the due process in Wikipedia see the editors' guide available at Policies and Guidelines.

Good article non-fiction is a great transition from Simple English. Above all, write on subjects of which you are knowledgeable. Note here, being knowledgeable is not enough, there has to be Verifiable information supporting preferably definite facts, no opinions or approximations unless absolutely necessary and: be encyclopedic — there cannot be scope in wikipedia, sadly for ORIGINAL RESEARCH, go publish these findings elsewhere and claim copyright.

As to language, certainly one good example in UK articles is while... which is recommended by WP:MOS in the US versions for comparisons, whereas to use a certain other word which shall remain nameless* (sorry — that's terrible) is frowned upon over the pond. I note it is seen time and again by ordinary speakers of British English in many of their contributions. I do not hesitate to use it. While all the time makes for long prose! Whereas is also one of the most useful and widespread concatenations of two Anglo-Saxon words other than throughout which is still widely used in the press. And there is nothing wrong with keeping words which have always been together, like albeit, together, even if it does not chime with the bulk of words in your vocabulary (which may be an almost pure, evolved Latin/Norman if you have been in a bureaucratic English job).

Good encyclopedia writers do not introduce subjects using the latest (or in the case of historic articles, temporary) fad-like jargon. Official language without clear meaning to those unfamiliar with latest official publications is reminiscent of Newspeak. It is deprecated. Editors who insert named NUTS or ONS statistical units in any lead section for example are seriously in need of a history lesson. Particular offenders of this rule of transparency are, as you may already have guessed (not surmised...), technical and multi-national publications particularly when dealing with matters of potential CONTROVERSY. Consensus makes taboo many politically-biased ratios, indices and class-based terminology. The astute among you will note how prevalent these are in the generally poorest and richest area breakdowns you come across in day-to-day life. It was refreshing to read for example that London Borough of Richmond upon Thames does not avoid detailed mention of its poverty whereas several of its sources go on ad nauseum that it is overall the richest London borough and portray each part as a private mansions quarter! In many cases, instead, a consensus-based broad dataset should be placed next to, comparing, national averages, whether of housing, homelessness, race, religion, age, occupation, green space, leisure facilities or income. It's pointless dwelling on one lopsided study. On a positive, WP:UKTOWNS and other subject-specific guidance exists. If an article follows it, more editors tend to edit it and it moves up in grade!

I really value Wikipedia's Manual of Style and agree with several helpful suggestions on the talk page there, why not get involved if you have a view on the style of articles you prefer to read?