Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Lost their lives

Would "lost their lives" fall under MOS:EUPH? I personally think that it's better to just say "died" but it certainly isn't as euphemistic as "passed away". ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's a euphemism. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there might be regional differences in how it's perceived. To me, it's generally neutral without being blunt, but unlike died it implies that they died unexpectedly in something like an accident, military attack or disaster—so it carries extra information. In some contexts it might be a euphemism, but only some in my view. It depends how it's being used. Mostly it comes across to me as respectful to those who died but otherwise neutral (and not euphemistic). It recognises that death is a loss. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't really describe it as an euphemism either (they did lose their lives, irretrievably so). In general, a simple "died" will be best, but I'd consider it occasionally acceptable simply for variety. Gawaon (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Lost his life" sounds to me like someone was careless and left it on the Clapham omnibus. EEng 03:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Informal language

The 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.

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)

This subject "has been described as..."

When describing critics' opinions, Wikipedia often uses this phrase instead of mentioning those critics individually. Should phrases like this be rewritten whenever possible? Jarble (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it as long as it's followed by at least one suitable citation either (a) describing it as such or (b) asserting that it's described as such. Largoplazo (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

And that it's WP:DUE. You don't want "He has been described as 'a perfect angel'^{[his mother's Facebook post]}."

When it's an appropriate thing to say, you also don't want "Alice, Bob, Chris, David, Eve, Frank, and others have described him as..." When the list becomes long enough, or the sentiment common enough, you should just omit the WP:INTEXT attribution, and when it becomes extremely long and common, you should just say "is". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

See where I wrote "suitable". Largoplazo (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The phrase should be subject to academic consensus, not just a "someone said x" reference. More so if it is a subjetive label, triple so if it is a controversial one. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect an academic consensus for a non-academic subject. "It was described as 'the silliest internet meme of the year'" (assuming multiple reliable sources used that phrase) is not an unreasonable sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Check the link, "academic consensus" in wikispace does not need to be about academic topics. It means, in your example, that a reference has to say that everybody thinks it was the silliest meme of the year, not just a lone guy crying "this is the silliest meme of the year!". Cambalachero (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The link says "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

I think that's about statements that directly assert a scientific/academic consensus, e.g., "There is a scientific consensus that this is the silliest meme of the year". A lone guy crying "This is the silliest" could be included as "It was described as 'the silliest' by Lone Guy". When it's not a matter of "individual opinions", i.e., when lots of sources share Lone Guy's view, then you could omit INTEXT attribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"Committed suicide" at Village Pump again

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide

This perennial unresolved usage debate has returned, with a variety of proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

PS: Summary of prior related major discussions, gathered by Sam_S: MOS:SUICIDE, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2018, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019, VPPOL 2021, VPPOL 2023.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Amenities

Many pages on localities use amenities as a heading. I do not believe this term should be used as per the OED it means 'an aspect or feature that makes something more pleasant or adds attractiveness.' We should not list pleasant features but instead notable ones. I typically rename these to 'notable places'. I could not find anything in the archives about this specific term and whether it should or shouldn't be used, and what should be used in replacement for it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Your logic escapes me; by your reasoning a section heading can't be just ==Visitor accommodations==, but rather must be ==Notable visitor accommodations==. Anyway, it's a myth that article content must be notable -- see WP:NNC. You certainly shouldn't go around changing section headings in the way you describe, because not all amenities are places. If you think there shouldn't be an amenities section, argue that on the article's talk page. EEng 03:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That isn't what my logic is. Amenities is a non-neutral term and not an encyclopaedic term. I figured 'notable places'.

  >Anyway, it's a myth that article content must be notable

  Notability doesn't simply refer to Wikipedia notability, notable in this case simply means 'worth nothing'. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Amenities" is a neutral term. In common conversation it can be (yet another) euphemism for loo, as in "I'll just use the amenities". It's a useful and valid heading for shops, churches, sports facilities, etc, many of which aren't what I'd call "places". PamD 07:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Amenities imply they are positives. You wouldn't refer to something perceived negatively as an amenity. The sense of 'loo' is not the one used in this context. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  You wouldn't refer to something perceived negatively as an amenity. Correct, and such a thing is not ordinarily covered in such a section. The section is about things that are not negative. The level of positivity in the word "amenities" is commensurate with the quality of the items chosen for coverage in the section. If a section isn't allowed to be only about positive things, don't have the section. Largoplazo (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Such a section includes features that are of use or of value or of interest. It doesn't include features that that people would be well advised to avoid or that are of no use or value or interest whatsoever: good places to get knifed at 2 in the morning, filthiest toilets at the amusement park. It's inherently positive, but not in the sense of being biased. If there's going to be such a section, the word "amenities" is an accurate description for it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

>Such a section includes features that are of use or of value or of interest

Which is something you would find in a guidebook not an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You didn't start this discussion to debate the presence of these sections, only their title. Are you moving the goalposts? By the way, if we're going to pursue this any further it'd be helpful if you pointed out concrete examples. It's hard to discuss the appropriate heading for a section the contents of which are unknown to us. Largoplazo (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wimbledon, London for an example. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot that should be cut from that article -- we certainly don't need a list of all the churches -- but it's not the section name Amenities. EEng 20:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to agree - if you're arguing that these sections are inappropriate, changing their title won't change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Its not inherently positive, for example a page on a town's amenities might note that the sewer system overflows in heavy rains which has a negative impact on the water quality and recreational potential of a local watercourse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

IMO Amenities is neutral in that context... "Local amenities" seems to be pretty common phrase and doesn't really carry the same sort of classy air that "Amenities" does is say a page for a luxury condo building. Maybe there is a more neutral phrase for what is a catch all for educational institutions, public utilities, museums, parks, transportation, shopping malls etc in most contexts but I don't know one. More highly developed articles about particularly large/important localities may have amenities broken down into various categories but for a lot of smaller places it makes sense as a section to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)