Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Principle of Some Astonishment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 30 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment → Wikipedia:Principle of some astonishment – Not a proper noun, per WP:NCCAPS, there is no evidence this refers to a specific topic like Iron Maiden but rather a generic one, Iron maiden. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of stupid, time-wasting gnoming in my time, but this takes the cake.
"No evidence"? Here's the evidence: it's a concept I created – an essay I created – a humorous essay (though with a serious message) meant to have a sort of faux grandeur about it, and thus the title case. Furthermore, NCCAPS is about article titles, and this isn't an article. I purposefully created it with title case, you had it moved to sentence case [1], I moved it back [2], and now you want to bring the ponderous RM apparatus into motion, and waste other editors' time, because you can't sleep at night knowing it's in title case? Really? Don't you have anything productive to do? EEng 19:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes really. Where is the research that essays get moved all the time and that "no one" has ever objected. I presented evidence you have not so I reiterate the bad faith and point comment. MarnetteD|Talk 12:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen anyone object to such moves. If they're not important to you then you don't need to waste time objecting to it[4]. I see no benefit for readers or editors to IAR in this case and the drawback is that it suggests its a proper noun and/or that that's how we're supposed to title things. While I'm aware we default to what the 1st major contributor uses if its not clear which should be used but in this case it is and while the MOS may mainly be aimed at mainspace it quite clearly applies to all namespaces. If this was a userspace essay then I probably wouldn't have requested this but its in the project space which generally means its more open, see WP:USERESSAY. I'd also point out that the same editor who moved the zero tolerance essay also moved User:League Octopus/Club Notability Tables (and Test) User:League Octopus/Club notability tables (and test) with no known problems. I didn't give any evidence when I requested the move originally because none was needed, there was no reason to think anyone would object and it can be seen that its not a proper noun just by reading the essay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because while having pretensions of being e.e. cummings is inexplicably popular in the main article space, that sort of unwanted gnomery and bikeshedding just annoys people without contributing to the encyclopedia when taken here, and because title-case is very common in Wikipedia space (examples: all projects, The Signpost). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Signpost is a proper noun namely a specific thing, Principle of some astonishment doesn't appear to be its just a generic term just like Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly don't understand the meaning of proper noun, and I'm going to be absolutely blunt at this point: you shouldn't be trying to impose your WP:MISSSNODGRASSian ideas on experienced, educated editors who actually write for publication when you yourself write run-on sentences and don't know the difference between it's and its. I think you contributions on British places are wonderful (I really mean that) but you're out of your depth here. EEng 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this essay could use more pointlessly elitist sarcasm

[edit]

Can anyone help me think of some? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually give much heed to the requests of the little people, but since you've asked so nicely we'll see what we can do. EEng 02:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter abounds.

[edit]

Greetings,

I stumbled across this essay at a moment when I was in need of laughter. Even some spit-take-worthy laughter. (But perhaps my laughter was the nervous kind, out of the shock of recognition...?)

^_^ / After I read this essay, I found the funniness humorous, not before. My elevated mood lightened and improved upward after reading this list. After I read the list, I noticed that it made me thankful and gratefully appreciative because I read it, not before. / ^_^

[Did you know that there is no good synonym for the verb "read"? The Merriam-Webster website lacks one, anyhow. The few synonyms offered through their Thesaurus function just don't do the job. I find that astonishing and therefore, worth mentioning!]

Thank you yet again, Wordreader (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think. (BTW, scan is a fair -- though not great -- synonym for read.) EEng 05:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs somewhere in here, but it's so stupid I can't think of a comment worthy of it

[edit]

[5] EEng 05:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the earthquake caused his actual head to fall off, THAT would be worth mentioning. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a suitable addition to Harvey Hawley Crippen's wax figure. Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trifecta

[edit]

Here's an example of WP:AREYOUBEINGSERVED, WP:ASTONISHME and WP:INTOTHEWOULDS in three short sentences. Indefatigable (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide how to honor this properly. It's like all the planets coming into alignment. Perhaps we could give it its own essay. EEng 18:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Put it on every single page. Wilh3lmTalk 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"in the world"

[edit]

Some of the in the world examples here aren't good ones, because it actually can be genuinely a necessary clarification for very different reasons than the ones provided for why it's supposedly stupid. Namely, there are questions about scope that sometimes need the clarifier -- it's less a question of "the world vs. other worlds", and more a question of "the world vs. a smaller part of the world".

For example, was Charles Whitman the youngest Eagle Scout in the world, or was he merely the youngest Eagle Scout in Florida? Did UC Berkeley discover more chemical elements than any other university in the world, or did it merely discover more chemical elements than any other university in the United States? Without "in the world", such examples are actually unclear, because a distinction might also be considerably less than worldwide, and might be only national, statewide or even local.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's always necessary -- "world" certainly doesn't add anything to the Club of Rome example. But there are times when it is necessary to clarify that a distinction pertains worldwide as opposed to just one country, state, province or city. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if we say that Berkeley discovered more chemical elements than any other university, why in the world (so to speak) would any reader imagine that, in fact, only US universities were meant? It makes no sense. "More than any other university" means "more than any other university". EEng 04:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why in the world (so to speak) would any reader imagine that, in fact, only US universities were meant? In (most of) the world, few if any would. But in the US, many people seem unaware that places outside the US have universities, running water, or Internet access. (Some, not sure how many, appear not to believe there's anything besides the US.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm vaguely aware that there are people and things outside the US, though I'm just not sure where exactly. EEng 11:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little belatedly, this article has a picture depicting those people and things with the appropriate level of detail. HTH, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic Eugene O'Neill

[edit]

EEng 06:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol

[edit]

"Shocking"

Help I'm dying of laughter.

That is hilarious. Also the fact that somebody may not know that electricity is hazardous is very funny. I love this page. Angerxiety (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff I want to add sometime but am too lazy to add now because I'm very busy and important

[edit]
Followup to the Cowardly Lion
LDS church done, the articles giving their own titles really needs a section because at some point there will be too many for the comments to tell a story. Wilh3lmTalk 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a classic example.

[edit]

"Panettiere unexpectedly died of cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) with aortic valve complications on February 19, 2023, at the age of 28." So far, we have established he sadly died. ('Unexpectedly' is probably redundant for a 28-year-old having a heart attack, but wait, there's more)

"He was found unresponsive sitting upwards in a chair by a friend " Having died, he was found dead.

"who performed Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and eventually called 911." Astonishingly, his friend didn't want him to be dead.

"He was pronounced dead shortly thereafter." having died, and been found dead, and not made not dead, he was pronounced dead.

"According to his father Alan, Jansen had "sounded okay" when the two spoke with each other the prior evening." The day before he died, he wasn't dead.

JeffUK 22:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I regret not acknowledging your outstanding find more promptly. As soon as I reach civilization I'll be awarding you the Principle of Some Astonishment Iron Cross of Prodigious Merit, with Oak Leaves and Recycled Cubic Zirconium Sprinkles. EEng 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would question this. For instance, "Unresponsive," does not inherently mean dead. And it would not be unexpected, in someone of any age, if they had, for example, been on the heart transplant list for a year.
There isn't actually any literal repetition in the statement, nor can the subsequent statements be deduced from the first from the mere meaning of language ("Unmarried bachelor") or typical nature of the entity in question ("Fires are hot."). The first sentence leaves it entirely possible that the person in question was found recumbent on a lawn by a stranger while walking her dog in a city park, whereupon she instantly realised he was dead and called police with a report of probable murder!
A statement summarising a matter followed by a few sentences giving the details is usually considered good and clear style.
If someone wrote a sentence saying of their hypothetical subject, "John was found dead in a chair by a friend who, upon finding him dead, attempted resuscitation, which failed; the friend then called 999, shortly after which he was pronounced dead, despite having sounded ok the previous day," then the criticism would be entirely correct!
As what is quoted stands, it is more like saying, "Caesar was assassinated in the senate on [date]. Various other senators, including former friends such as Brutus, wishing to put a stop to his apparently autocratic ambitions, surrounded him and stabbed him multiple times with daggers that they had hidden in their robes. He died on the scene." The sentences which follow the initial statement elaborate rather than repeat, and none of what they add is inherently obvious. Of course, if you said, "Caesar was assassinated in the senate, after which he died," that would be astonishing... inherent tautology. :-)  :-P
People might decide the details were not necessary to the subject matter (no idea), but I don't think the initially quoted paragraph suffers from the particular problem this essay is about.
Condolences to the family. :-(. FloweringOctopus (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The real point is your last one: everything after Panettiere unexpectedly died of cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) with aortic valve complications on February 19, 2023, at the age of 28 doesn't belong in the article. It's newspaper detail. EEng 15:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - or at least, how much detail to include is a different issue. Though I'm going to protest again, in my usual pedantic manner, that if someone aged 28 had been on the heart transplant list for a couple of years, it would not have been unexpected, so the word, "Unexpectedly," is not in fact superfluous on the basis that it could be assumed!
I also prefer not to have to do too much mathematics - straightforward number bonds between 1-20 are one thing (he had 3 sons and 10 daughters), but beyond that, it does start becoming frustrating. It's not as if adding, "at the age of twenty-eight," made the sentence difficult to read!
Unlike this one: "Graham Glancy, a forensic psychiatrist hired by Bernardo's chief defence lawyer, John Rosen, had offered an alternative theory to explain Homolka's behaviour, noted Williams in Invisible Darkness, his first book on the case," (sentence is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka, as it currently stands)! Not sure if that is irrelevant material or bad use of prepositions, though... FloweringOctopus (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pinging @EEng: In this essay, diffs are linked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=${DIFF_ID}&oldid=${OLD_ID} ${ARTICLE_NAME}], when it can be written like [[Special:Diff/${OLD_ID}/${DIFF_ID}|${ARTICLE_NAME}]]. I think it's generally better to use wikilinks. --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Why don't you do it yourself?
A: Am too lazy ﾍ( ￣ー￣)ﾉ --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A variety of syntaxes are available for convenience, and no one of them is better than the others. Whatever format's there now is there because it was easy to copy-paste it from elsewhere; it works; and it should be just left alone. Your little joke about being lazy implicitly recognizes that: (a) it's work to change this stuff, and (b) there's no actual benefit to doing so. I realize you mean well but please don't roil things just for the sake of uniformity. EEng 18:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: Green tickY Got it --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: a better reason to do this is that clicking those links opens the desktop site even if you're using the mobile one. I could make the switch pretty easily with a regex if you give the go-ahead. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzlement examples

[edit]

I love this page and many if not all of the Some Astonishment examples are excellent. I hadn't seen the Puzzlement examples and so started through them with some hopeful glee. Alas, quickly I found myself disappointed. I winced at a few starting with the example from Trayvon Martin. I get that it looks like awkward product placement to mention Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea, but those products featured heavily in the news stories about the event and the subsequent analysis. The key point isn't the product placement per se, but the fact that Trayvon was not armed and dangerous in the fashion that Zimmerman had insisted he had suspected. The items that Trayvon was carrying were candy and a soft drink. That's part of the story.

To that effect, I think that a lot of the examples of Puzzlement could be improved. A few are fantastic: the risotto dinner, the corn cob truck, the dairy cows full of milk, the bus driver who was born when the Titanic sunk. But I judge the remainder of the section to be less compelling and not worthy of the chef's kisses that the rest of this excellent piece permits.

Could I prevail upon the editors of this page to pare down that section? If I were the decider, I would leave only the four examples listed above. I also don't think the cheap shot at The New Yorker really works. It's a fair cop to the turgid style of that publication, but it is not really about Wikipedia and has a bit of ironic hypocrisy baked into it as an irrelevant detail about the rest of the world, if you ask me.

Anyhoo, that's what this fan of the page thinks. I'll let myself out.

jps (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been many generous contributions since I originally wrote this page, but the overall effect is that it's now too heavy. Some trimming will be useful, I agree. EEng 15:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I might be excused favouring this talk-page with another of my amazing opinions :-P  :-) could I suggest not cutting it down too much? Granted, removing a few of the more dubious examples might be worthwhile.
    However, writing style necessarily has an element of induction (as in logic, not as in cookers!) in it, and with induction a range of different examples is helpful. A disease cannot usually be reliably recognised by a person who has only seen one example; a doctor who has seen a thousand cases and another thousand cases of look-a-likes is much more likely to get it right.
    If the skittles and the watermelon drink are part of the Trayvon Martin story, it isn't at all made clear what. In the case of the man who was shot when police mistook the table leg he was carrying for a gun, the fact that he was carrying a table leg is a key part of the whole event. In the Trayvon Martin case, if the skittles and the watermelon drink actually had anything to do with it, it isn't stated. If the point is that he was obviously unarmed, why not just say so?
    Of course, when writing a a newspaper story: "INCOMPETENT NEIGHBOURBOOD WATCH SHOOTS UNARMED TEENAGER DEAD... nothing was found on his body except a bag of skittles and a watermelon drink, recently purchased at the local corner shop," the details serve the purpose of emphasizing just how unarmed he was, and also help communicate the impression of an "everyman" teenager. In a brief summary on Wikipedia, specifying skittles and a watermelon drink doesn't add anything. Indeed, I'd argue that it's just confusing because I kept expecting them to play some actual part in the matter!
    I suppose the moral suggested in that reflection is that if a detail such as the exact nature of what someone brought in a corner shop is significant only because the press made a thing of it in telling the story, then it should probably go into a "reporting and aftermath" section!
    FloweringOctopus (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this essay!

[edit]

The essay opened my eyes to the fact that I have a tendency to err on the side of (slight!) over-explanation when writing for Wikipedia. My thinking has been that I want to be absolutely sure that everyone can understand exactly what is meant by the text, but I see now that I may be slightly underestimating the average reader's comprehension skills. Also, several portions of the essay made me laugh out loud!

Although, I do agree with what jps said five months ago, in that some of the "Puzzlement" examples are not very puzzling. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in including a few smaller details within reason, for example, that the train passengers "were taken to a gym in Arras to wait", or that Chuck Schumer attended a "private risotto dinner" (italics mine). Also, the bit at the end about The New Yorker does strike me as somewhat superfluous.

Overall, I judge this essay to be a worthwhile read and a valuable addition to the Wikipedia canon. I thank everyone who contributed to this essay; I hope many more people will read it, laugh, and think, as I did. SmileySnail (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visually impaired and picture captions - something to bear in mind

[edit]

I love this and I was laughing my head off: though I don't agree with all the examples, as common sense is contextual, it is a wonderful delve into good writing with respect to appropriate selection of genuinely relevant material.

However, I would just like to mention that describing a picture in the caption is not necessarily superfluous for all users. A screen-reader usually has access to anything presented in text but not to pictorially presented information, unless alternative text has been provided. Insisting that picture captions should correctly not say anything that is obvious to people who can see the picture is liable to exclude anyone who can only access the text.

Though I am visually impaired it is mostly spacial (persistent migraine aura) so I am able to interpret most 2D pictures as if I had full sight, and I do not use a screen-reader on Wikipedia (or on anything except academic reading where the quantity is otherwise too great for my level of visual fatigue), so although I am aware of considerable limitations, I do not actually have much by way of personal experience.

In some applications it is possible to provide alternative text for screen readers where a picture occurs, meaning that screen-reader users would not have to rely on the caption but could hear a purpose-written description text (not appearing on the page visually).

Anyway, is there a stated accessibility policy on this? Could people perhaps draw the issue to the attention of anyone who does use a screen-reader specifically on Wikipedia, for further opinions?

FloweringOctopus (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We (at least ideally should) put alt text on everything – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's idea, and I'd do it all the time except that I gave up after getting completely contradictory advice (stridently offered in both cases) on the form alts should take. For example, on the page linked above there's this photo and caption:
Elizabeth II speaking to the public.
Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"
The source code for that image is:
[[File:Queen Elisabeth II.JPG|thumb|right|upright=0.80|alt=Elizabeth II speaking to the public.|Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the <code>alt</code> text for this image of [[Elizabeth II]] should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"]]
Now, this seems completely backward. It seems to me that the regular caption should be Elizabeth II speaking to the public, and the alt text should be An elderly, white-haired woman wearing a green dress, black fur hat, diamond brooch, and pearls. She is smiling broadly at a small group of people gathered about her. If I understand correctly, a screen reader will read out both the "regular" caption and the alt, and both are what a blind person needs -- first something describing what the image portrays, and then a description of the appearance of that portrayal -- what they can't see but a sighted person can. What in tarnation is the point of telling a blind person that it's a photo of the Queen without telling them what she looks like? Are we supposed to assume they already know that? They went blind late in life, maybe? I'm sorry, it's completely dumb.
The few times I added actually descriptive alts, someone came behind me and told me it's the wrong thing to do, so I gave up. Someday I'll post this over at MOS/Accessibility, but that day isn't today. (Maybe you could remind me in a few months.) EEng 21:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text only needs to (as best as possible) replace the purpose of the image. If the purpose of the image is to be a photo of Elizabeth II in an article where she's relevant, the alt text doesn't need to describe her appearance, because those details are incidental to the reason the image is present. If the purpose of the image is to show readers what Elizabeth II looks like, it should describe her appearance.
Another way of thinking about it is "Why is this image in the article?" Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the alt text should do as much as reasonably possible to allow a blind person to extract as much information from the article as a sighted person does. That means describing what a sighted person sees. EEng 07:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Strongly agreed. We should be deciding which information we want, like everyone else.
(I feel I should remind people that I'm rather on the edge of this: visually impaired, but not typically a user of alternative text. If people who do actually use a screen reader on wikipedia generally say something else about how this should work, then go with what they say not with what I say)!
If what the image actually shows is merely incidental, such that it can be adequately replaced with the statement, "A picture of Elizabeth II," then the image probably should not be in the article at all!
Lack of access to incidental learning is, I believe, one of the main "alerts" given to anyone trying to educate children who have any level of visual impairment. That is, a child with full sight generally knows that a rugby ball isn't round and that the oven chips are stored in the freezer and that Elizabeth II was an elderly woman with white hair in 2015, because these things are immediately apparent to sight. A child with visual impairment may not know, precisely because these things are obvious to most people and are therefore never talked about.
The sighted person can see, "An elderly, white-haired woman wearing a green dress, black fur hat, diamond brooch, and pearls. She is smiling broadly at a small group of people gathered about her." So that is what the alt text version should say. That is also the sort of thing I remember hearing on audio described television programmes and things (not that I've heard many).
I think aiming for alternative text is a good way of managing this, rather than cluttering up captions. But it sounds as if it needs an agreed style guide. I'll try to remember to remind you about posting the issue to the accessibility discussions in a few months time - unless someone else picks this up and can do it more quickly.
Thanks again.  :-)
FloweringOctopus (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The majority appear to be based in the inhabited continents of the world"

[edit]

See Special:Diff/1238036382 for a possibly-relevant example of this principle. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Principle_of_Some_Astonishment&oldid=1248369946"