Wikipedia:Vocabulary levels

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Comments below

This is not Simple Wikipedia.
In particular, edit mercilessly anything you don't like; but be prepared to accept there may be a consensus for gelid.

I believe these two points, both already policy, cover the situation. I conclude that this page belongs on MfD, but I wait to see what counterarguments there may be. Septentrionalis 19:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopaedia by definition we're writing for a non-specialist audience, so jargon and highly specialized vocabulary or words used in unusual ways in particular fields should be explained, as should difficult or controversial concepts.

At the same time, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia; we are writing mostly for an adult audience of primarily native or at least fluent speakers of English, and as an encyclopaedia this is supposed to be an academic environment. I'm not advocating complexity for the sake of complexity or obfuscation for the sake of image (or for any other reason), but we should also not be avoiding "big words," particularly words like "promulgate" and "feifdom," which any educated speaker can reasonably be expected to know. Besides, any reader of Wikipedia has instant access to (at least) dozens of online dictionaries at the click of a button.

The only time I can see it being a problem is if a writer is deliberately choosing obscure, archaic, or little-known terms and inserting them into articles in such numbers that it impedes flow and understanding; this could be considered vandalism. Exploding Boy 19:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

But gelid? Gelid's a perfectly cromulent word. Exploding Boy 19:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

But we can, and should, link to fiefdom, the existing Wikipedia article. This is also present policy. Septentrionalis 16:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gelid is totally goan and smee. Tough words should only be used if they are usfull. There is no reason to use words like gelid when icy/extremly cold/freezing etc would do. However words like Schadenfreude have reasons to be used. Ravedave 19:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:As an encyclopaedia by definition we're writing for a non-specialist audience, so jargon and highly specialized vocabulary or words used in unusual ways in particular fields should be explained...

I totally agree with the above quote. Perhaps I was wrong about promulgate, but words like fiefdom need explaining. In this case a link to the wikipedia article worked. Articles shouldn't be turned into Simple Wikipedia, a reasonable vocabulary can be assumed, but when native English speakers with an academic background with interests outside the field of the article don't get it, that may be an indication a word is in need of replacement. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is goan and smee? Fiefdom? Seriously? People don't know that word? It doesn't strike me as particularly unusual... In fact I'm sure I saw it on some sitcom on TV the other day... Exploding Boy 23:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

English was described by comedian/writer Clive James as being 'big and baggy'. Its huge vocabulary is both an advantage (shades of meaning, suppleness) and a disadvantage (controlling the 'elaborateness' of a register, addressing readers' limited vocabulary, aiming for plain, simple, direct language). Most writers and editors give high priority to readability; in this respect, the Plain English movement of the late 20th century has had an impact, even if it is not explicity embraced by many writers. Choosing Germanic over Latinate items unless there's a good reason (e.g., 'church music' rather than 'ecclesiastical music'), and achieving crispness by economy ('to' rather than 'in order to') are major planks of good writing nowadays. There used to be a tendency to use elaborate constructions, including long sentences and a larger-than-necessary lexicon; this was often a form of mild social exclusion and a way for writers to claim wide knowledge of the language. Regrettably, this practice is still evident in many languages. English may be a little ahead of some languages in this respect, and although I have no hard evidence to support that claim, I was recently struck by a comment by a Russian scientist whose English text I was editing: 'In Russian, if you don't use long sentences they think you're dumb'.

I suggest that uncommon words be avoided in Wikipedia unless there's a good reason (e.g., important shade of meaning). We want to be as inclusive and reader-friendly as possible! The issue then becomes the location of the boundary between common and uncommon items, which should occasionally be a talking point on discussion pages.

Drawing on technical lexicons in Wikipedia articles are a slightly different and sometimes vexed issue. In HIV, an article currently under peer review, I feel that the way jargon is used is a significant problem. Who is the target readership of this article? To what extent should the authors take measures to make it easier for non-specialist readers to navigate their way through? They haven't yet responded to my suggestion that the text be pitched at a junior medical undergraduate (which would make it considerably more accessible than it currently is).

I welcome responses to these thoughts. Tony 01:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion of this question (in different examples) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and its talk page, and a general opinion that an article should consider its target audience, begin simple, and work up to abstruse and difficult material. But that is not this proposed policy.Septentrionalis 16:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of vocabulary, anyone who has read the Harry Potter series will notice that a lot of uncommon words have been used by J.K. Rowling. For example I had to check out the meaning of frisson^[HP5]. Children of all ages and backgrounds read the novels without so much of a complaint. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Nicholas; she can get away with a lot, riding as she does on a megasuccess, and being almost a billlionaire. She would respond that looking up such a word in a dictionary is not beyond kids. My rejoinder would be that hardly any kids would look it up as they read, although riding over this may be part of their building up a sense of what the word means, just through its contexts. I think that 'frisson' is on the boundary of common and uncommon. On Wikipedia, we have the advantage of being able to gloss such a word if we choose to do so, in parentheses, on the spot; that would be inappropriate in fiction, of course! Tony 05:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said before, and as someone has alluded to above, Wikipedia is unique in that any reader has instant access to dozens of dictionaries and could look up an unfamiliar word in about 30 seconds without even having to get up. Exploding Boy 16:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Although there is nothing fundamentally wrong in using a "new" or "fancy" word in Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter), it would be fair to say that in this particular case usage of word "gelid" would not contribute to the clarity of information, moreover it would confuse readers.

One should not ask if "gelid" is a valid word or useful word, but if the article loses anything at all if a readily known word is used instead of an obscure one. Frankly, I don't see anything lost if one says "icy waters of Arctic Ocean" instead of "gelid waters...". If this sentence were used in a literary work, use of an obscure word could be defended on stylistic grounds, but in virtually all other cases such a word is certain to cause widespread confusion.

I pride myself on having a good vokab... voecabul... vocabbuler... I pride myself on my word power and I think gelid is unnecessarily florid. Words that are unlikely to be understood should not be used without special reason. --bodnotbod 01:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't think "gelid" is florid. Flocciauccinihilipilification is florid. Gelid is just a word that many people might not know, but that can be seen from time to time in the writing of educated people -- in fact, it was in a newspaper article I read a little while ago. I don't think we need to encourage obfuscation, but we don't need to remove perfectly accurate words from articles because some readers might not know them. That's what dictionaries are for, after all. Exploding Boy 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"gelid" is a perfect example of a word that should not be in a sentence in an encyclopedia. And yes, it is florid. A word doesn't have to be long to be florid. It is an extremely unusual word for a very simple concept. If you want to be more precise, fine, be more precise. Find out what the average temperature of the arctic is. But an encyclopedia is not a poem. Gelid is a highfalutin, florid, pompous, snooty word that should be stricken from normal prose with extreme prejudice. Don't use two words when one will do. Don't use long words when short ones will do. Don't use abnormal, weird words when everyday ones will do. But by all means, when short, normal words in small numbers will not do, use a whole lot of long, freaky words. Just my $0.05. --Slashme 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]