Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#rfc E272B5E

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&oldid=1275229902 current revision] of this article recommends had sex over made love. But I think both expressions are too informal. Instead, I would recommend engaged in sexual intercourse (or anal intercourse or fellatio, as the case may be). OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't find had sex either informal or formal, just standard neutral language, and hence appropriate. For me, engaged in sexual intercourse is in the same category as using provide a concisely worded explanation of instead of concisely explain. I'd immediately want to shorten engaged in to had, and sexual intercourse to sex.{{pb}}There's also an added layer of meaning: in what sense did they "engage in" having sex? The formality of the language implies there was something deliberately formal about their having sex, or maybe that the writer disapproves of it. It states more than the simple fact that they had sex. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::"Engaged in sexual intercourse" would probably be the preferred diction, but I don't see whats so wrong with "have sex" either. "Made love" is the only one I can say probably doesn't belong and can arguably be deemed 'informal' Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The Edit check feature helps newer volunteers make constructive changes to Wikipedia projects by offering them actionable feedback while they are editing. The Editing team is working on a new check: Peacock Check.

Peacock Check will prompt people adding puffery or promotional terms to write in a neutral tone. The goals of this project are to:

• Decrease the number of new content edits that contain non-neutral language,
• Increase the quality of edits that new(er) volunteers publish
• Reduce the volume of edits that experienced volunteers need to patrol or remove

We invite interested volunteers to join us for a session on April 28, 2025 at [https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1745863200 18:00–19:00 UTC]. After a presentation about the goals of the project, we will try out the current prototype and discuss (in English) any feedback you’d like to share. Your input is very important to the team so that we can create a feature that fits everyone's needs. --[on behalf of the Editing team] Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=%22storied+career%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 many examples] of someone having had a "storied career". Is this a peacock term? It doesn't seem to convey any useful information. --Jameboy (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:At least they aren't describing them as novelists, athletes, musicians, etc. "of song and story". But, yes, it's a peacock term. 🦚🦚🦚 In fact, it makes me feel as I felt years ago when I discovered how many bio articles described someone having done or achieved something "at a tender age" or "at the tender age of X", driving me to edit hundreds of them to rid them of that sloppy sentimentality. (I think that's when I discovered AutoWikiBrowser.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::The town boasts several historic sites. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Historic sites which garner accolades. EEng 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have an aversion to the word "garnered" that I see used here so often. It isn't that the word is used only here, but I feel like it's become a very Wikipedia word, one that people use here mostly because they see it used in other articles, very wiki-trendy, and that they otherwise wouldn't use. I can't say that I have any policy-based or MOS-based objection to it, and until just now I thought it was only a peculiarity of mine, but do you feel the same way? Largoplazo (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's the kind of writing you find in press releases and Variety. EEng 00:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think in general the term "storied" is a peacock term, at least that use... Obviously doesn't apply to the other common uses (as in having multiple floors or being decorated with historical/mythological motifs/images). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:It conveys the impression of impactfulness, but that is better shown through describing the actual impact. CMD (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe it can be promotional but I see it more as slightly pompous, meaningless waffle used to pad out content without actually saying anything. It is bad, clichéd writing but I doubt that it is done in bad faith. The real peacocks will go for something rather more extravagant. Nonetheless, I think it can safely be removed any time it shows up outside of a quotation. It's not adding anything of value. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:SAID has {{tq|to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness}}. Where does this come from? I was recently taken to task for using "noted", so I dove into the OED and don't see anything which supports this interpretation. I do (ahem) note that {{tq|For example, "X noted," "X reported," and "X observed" imply that X was correct so to note, report, or observe}} goes all the way back to very first revision of this page in 2010, and has slowly evolved over the years into the current wording. But do we have any rigorous citations that this is correct, or is it just something {{np|SlimVirgin}} wrote and people have been cargo culting ever since? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think there are some situations where "noted" does imply more truthfulness than "wrote". Something like "RoySmith wrote that bananas are the best. Firefangledfeathers noted that RoySmith was incorrect." If we're in a situation where there is no undue implication of truthfulness, the guideline doesn't proscribe use of the words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::But do we have any citations from reputable dictionaries or similar sources which support these interpretations? If not, then it's just WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::M-W has for note "to notice or observe with care; to record or preserve in writing". So there is something being noticed, observed, recorded, or preserved. "Trystan noted that the glass had broken, but it had not," sounds self-contradictory, while "Trystan said that the glass had broken, but it had not," does not.--Trystan (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I've just done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FWords_to_watch&diff=1295076763&oldid=1295073599 a bold addition] to MOS:RELTIME about how to reword phrases such as {{xt|"in recent years" or "in modern times"}}. I don't expect any disagreement, but just in case, I'd like to explain these additions here for good understanding.

I come across {{xt|"in recent years"}} or {{xt|"in modern times"}} all the time, especially in articles written in the early days of Wikipedia ({{circa}} 2001–2009). I think these recommendations follow logically from the previous sentences' examples of {{tq|"in the past" and "traditional(ly)"}}. I also think they weren't yet adequately covered by the first and second paragraph of MOS:RELTIME, which discuss cases in which a specific year or even month can be found. Because sometimes, it's a bit more vague than that, particularly when it describes a gradual development or a series of loosely-connected events, which spans several unspecified years or decades. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_rights_in_Ukraine&diff=1295073427&oldid=1291797229 in this case, I've just reworded] {{!xt|in recent years}} to {{xt|in the 2010s and 2020s}}, based on [https://time.com/6273445/putin-lgbt-rights-ukraine-russia/ the cited source], which only mentions examples from the 2010s and 2020s.

To avoid cluttering up the subsection, I've added a footnote with more examples and an explanation/rationale: {{xt|Given that such descriptions often reflect the time in which editors have been writing since Wikipedia's launch in 2001, more fitting descriptions often include "by the early 21st century", "since the early 2000s", or "in the 2010s and 2020s".}} These are all examples that I've used myself to reword such phrases on English Wikipedia and especially Dutch Wikipedia, where lots of articles have barely been updated since the early days ({{circa}} 2001–2009), and so the time of writing is erroneously (or short-sightedly) presented as reflecting a permanent state of affairs. Sometimes, this also involves changing the grammar from simple present to simple past. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivar_Aasen&diff=1294567988&oldid=1294567253 in this article], which cited two scholarly sources from 2002 and 2009, I changed {{!xt|Today, some consider}} to {{xt|As of the early 2000s, some scholars considered}}.

(As an aside, this section also had some POV phrasings that I reworded, e.g. claims how 'viable' and 'stable' Nynorsk {{!xt|is}} or {{!xt|needs to be considered}}, which are inadmissible per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAPBOX. This question is in fact hotly debated. I just randomly googled two more recent sources that arrived at opposite conclusions, with [https://books.google.com/books?id=vUp6EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA284 this 2022 book] arguing Nynorsk is {{tq|steadily decreasing}} (without specifying between when and when), while [https://books.google.com/books?id=jGPyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12 this 2020 book] argues twice that {{tq|the actual number of Nynorsk writers has not decreased the latter years / has been stable the last decades, but the percentage is decreasing}} (without clarifying which or how many 'latter years' or 'last decades' these were). Ironically, both books apparently cite the same '12% of elementary school pupils in Norway' figure from the [Vangsnes] 2018 report to make their argument that Nynorsk use is both {{tq|steadily decreasing}} and {{tq|has been stable the last decades}}. It seems that the 2022 book is implicitly comparing the figures of 34,1% in 1945 and 20% in 1965 – which the 2020 book mentions explicitly – to the 12% figure of [Vangsnes] 2018 to conclude Nynorsk is {{tq|steadily decreasing}}, while the 2020 book offers no figures to support the claim that Nynorsk use {{tq|has been stable the last decades}}. I honestly have no idea what the truth is. But this is a perfect example of how contradicting assertions can be made if we allow ourselves to be vague in our wordings, and do not properly cite sources to support our conclusions.)

At any rate, if anyone has questions or suggestions about my WP:BOLD addition, please say so. I'm happy to discuss any issues. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)