Wikipedia talk:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water

He would later die

I have it in mind to add a section on the stylistic pretension of constructions such as "He then moved to New York, where he would later die of cancer." Contributions welcome. (Some examples at [1]. EEng 19:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a separate page? It has little to do with nautical gender. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If enough material accumulates it can split off. You'll notice the intro welcomes all forms of stylistic pretension. EEng 22:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll split it off in the next day or two. EEng 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I never did split, but probably some day. Blame it on the pandemic. EEng 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, for the record this example just added, which I wrote, contains what I would normally attack as elegant variation:

The commission weighed heavily on French even as the figure neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," wrote the sculptor‍—‌who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial‍—‌"and a failure would be inexcusable. As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days."

But it's a hard case. I invite my esteemed fellow editors to find a rewrite which refers to French as simply French (or maybe he) instead of as the sculptor. EEng 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This can equally well be written "... wrote the sculpture—who thirty years later created the statue ...". It doesn't have to be written in you are there foreshadowing mode. Largoplazo (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I actually disagree. This is a classic appropriate use of would to (as Reyk put it) temporarily [skip] to the relative future during a narrative. My concern was that I can't offhand see a way to avoid the apparent elegant variation of wrote the sculptor, because we can't have it:

The commission weighed heavily on French even as the figure neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," he wrote—‌who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial‍—‌"and a failure [etc etc]."

You see the dilemma. I'm quite stumped. EEng 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't avoid the elegant variation because they're one and the same thing, in my opinion. I don't see anything distinguishing this from the other cases that the essay declares undesirable. A set phrase, "who went on to", could be used instead, avoiding the modal, to establish the relationship between the past and subsequent event while substituting a narrative approach for one of foretelling. "It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," wrote the sculptor‍—‌who thirty years later went on to create the statue ...". Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

they're one and the same thing – Can you clarify? What are the they that are one and the same thing? EEng 19:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The two things are "use of would to ... temporarily [skip] to the relative future during a narrative" and "elegant variation". Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... There's a communication failure here. Elegant variation and the would construction (the formal name for which I cannot recall, if I ever knew it) are two completely different things ... which you yourself seem to recognize in #What is the Woulds section doing here?, so I'm really confused about what's going on here. EEng 01:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would have thought that the Woulds section would have been whittled down here by now, and stacked in it's own would-pile elsewhere. Wouldn't you agree? Itsfullofstars (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Whittling down the woulds. I like it. EEng 02:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Saw EEng raise this on the MOS would-discussion. I found this discussion, so replying here instead.

There are a few things going on in this passage - it's kind of flowery, and it uses metaphorical language ("weighed heavily"). Fine for an entertaining non-fiction romp by someone like Bill Bryson, but it's not my preferred style for encyclopaedias, which I think should be clear and direct.

IMO, the use of "the sculptor" here is 100% elegant variation. The simple fix is just to replace "the sculptor" with "French":

The commission weighed heavily on French even as the figure neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," wrote French—‌who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln...

Naturally, this might make people itchy about the repetition of "French". But this, as so often with repetition in writing, is caused by bigger problems, not the simple fact that the word is repeated. In this case the complex structure is the cause.

So - the use of "would" here is correct and adds clarity. But the placement of the information (that French created the Lincoln statue) isn't ideal. It's thrown anecdotally into the middle of a paragraph about something else entirely (in fact in the middle of a quote), which is part of what makes the "would" necessary, and therefore also the elegant variation. I'd take that information out of this paragraph and place it somewhere more appropriate - probably the end of the coverage of French.

I would rewrite the whole thing as something like:

The commission made French anxious, even as the statue neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime and a failure would be inexcusable," he said. "As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days."

... With the fact about later doing the Lincoln statue moved later on in the section. I'm sure there's a good home for it. Popcornfud (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ms. Haynes's other officers

Not sure it rises to the required level of humor as the rest of your entries, but I did get a tiny chuckle out of this one... [2] CThomas³ (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've returned to this several times, but while (as you said) there's a chuckle in it when you think about it, I can't see how to turn it into a appropriately LOL example without running into potential trouble on the equality-of-the-sexes or 23-genders fronts. I even tried fashioning an example starting Following the operation, the King awarded Admiral Smith, commander of the HMS Thingamajig, the Victoria Cross ... Several of her other admirals [something something] but I just can't get it to gel. (Besides, the king being a queen gets us into Edward II territory and I'm not up enough on history of the monarchy to handle that competently.) EEng 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely get it, and I appreciate the effort. I'll give it some more thought as well, but if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. CThomas³ (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the Woulds section doing here?

Why was the "Into the Woulds" section tacked onto this unrelated essay? Why isn't it its own essay? Largoplazo (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been too lazy to split it off. No doubt the spirit will move me sometime between now and when I die. EEng 19:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"EEng promised to work on this essay, but he would die before doing so." --Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Since talk pages are for suggesting improvements: "EEng promised to work on this essay but would slip majestically into the afterlife before doing so." Largoplazo (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In desperation EEng boarded the good ship Snodgrass for inspiration to complete the great treatise, but she would ultimately fail to deliver. CThomas³ (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm just grateful I had the chance to add "Big Van Vader would emerge victorious.[3]" to Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water NebY (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That's one of the wouldiest woulds ever, I would say. EEng 21:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

She was able to say

• [4] EEng 05:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Woulds: MOS?

The part about the "woulds" really should be upgraded to formal inclusion in the MOS. What would it take to make that happen? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It would take a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If I were to raise the question, I'd move to have the topic added at MOS:TENSE. Largoplazo (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've always been a MOS minimalist -- in fact I'm the original author of WP:MOSBLOAT. In particular, MOS should not generally try to teach rules or techniques of good writing that aren't peculiar to our work here. So under that criterion, I don't think this is a MOS matter unless we see it as a perennial or widespread problem that's wasting a lot of editor time. But I don't know whether that last bit does or does not obtain. EEng 03:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've personally lost track of the number of edit summaries of mine that read "He/she/they/it not only would but did", but I'm just a sample size of one. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I also have numerous edit summaries under my belt reading "would he or did he?" etc, until I started using "WP:INTOTHEWOULDS x5" and so on. So far no one has challenged my edits of this nature, on the basis that I was using an essay rather than an MOS link to justify them, fwiw. Echoedmyron (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)