Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation

Elegant variation is the attempt to fix repetition by replacing words with synonyms: for example, writing "blaze" instead of "fire".

Although "elegant variation" sounds like a good thing (there are varying accounts of the etymology), it's usually bad. It distracts the reader and removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humour or muddled metaphors. It fails to fix the real cause of repetitive prose, which is usually repeated information, not repeated words.

Some infamous examples of elegant variation include:

• popular orange vegetables (carrots)
• elongated yellow fruit (bananas)
• numbered spheroids (billiard balls)
• hen-fruit safari (Easter egg hunt)

These examples are fun because they're obviously ludicrous. However, elegant variation is often harder to spot.

People (and chimps)

Elegant variation is often used on Wikipedia in reference to individuals: for example, writing "the director" instead of "Spielberg".

Here's a passage from an old version of the article about Bubbles, a pet chimpanzee once owned by Michael Jackson. The elegant variation is bolded:

Bubbles (born April 30, 1983) is a common chimpanzee once kept as a pet by American recording artist Michael Jackson, who bought the primate from a Texas research facility in the early 1980s. The animal frequently traveled with the singer, whose attachment to the animal led to media mockery.

This presumably emerges from an attempt to avoid repetition. But the English language already has a solution for repetitive nouns: pronouns (he / him / she / her / they / them / it). When a pronoun isn't clear, just use the original word. In 99% of cases, the result is perfectly natural:

Bubbles (born April 30, 1983) is a common chimpanzee once kept as a pet by American recording artist Michael Jackson, who bought him from a Texas research facility in the early 1980s. Bubbles frequently traveled with Jackson, whose attachment to him led to media mockery.

Latter / former

"The latter" and "the former" are common examples of elegant variation, and rarely the best solution to repetition. For example:

Sarah and Louise went to a supermarket, where the former bought the latter an ice cream.

Note how this requires the reader to reread the sentence to figure out who the "former" and "latter" are. But without these words, the sentence becomes repetitive:

Sarah and Louise went to a supermarket, where Sarah bought Louise an ice cream.

This an example of how repetition usually emerges from repeated information, not repeated words. As it stands, the sentence structure requires us to state the subjects (Sarah and Louise) twice. The solution is to rewrite the sentence:

At a supermarket, Sarah bought Louise an ice cream.

Title

The word "title" is sometimes used as a synonym for media such as movies, magazines, and particularly video games. For example: "The classic Mega Man series consists of ten main titles." This is an example of journalese; it seems to have been absorbed from video game journalism (a reliable source of bad writing).

"Title" removes information and creates ambiguity. For example:

• "Sega announced the title Sonic Colors" could mean that Sega announced the game or the title of the game.
• "Resident Evil titles" might refer to the Resident Evil films, games, or both.

In any case, there's no advantage to using "title". As usual, it can be fixed by:

• being clear, precise, and direct – writing "game", "film", etc instead of "title"
• removing the word entirely where possible ("Sega announced Sonic Colors")
• restructuring the sentence if necessary

Titular

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.

Readers can see themselves when the character's name is in the title; you don't need to tell them. This also obfuscates the linked page. Finally, you ideally want to be in control of when readers think about tits.

Be clear and direct:

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

Of the same name

In articles about adaptations of works with the same title, it's common to wikilink using something like [[novel title|of the same name]]). For example:

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

This can introduce problems. "Of the same name" is often longer than the title itself, and it obfuscates the title, making it less clear.

The solution isn't necessarily obvious. Take this, for example:

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

This isn't ideal, because it isn't clear where the wikilink novel leads: the novel Under the Skin, or the article about novels generally?

Writing out the name in full is clear, but clunky:

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.

Alternatively, we can make use of another piece of information we're trying to include: the year of publication. By including the year in the wikilink, it clarifies that this is leading somewhere specific, not the novel article.

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.

This comes at the cost of obscuring the name of the novel. That's OK if the context suggests the film and novel share the name, as in the example above. Alternatively, we could split the sentences in two, which might help reduce the sense of repetition.