Talk:List of redundant expressions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome. Please see the Introduction section below before deleting or adding entries.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus, so keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
To-do list for List of redundant expressions: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Replace all example phrases with sourced quotations from reliable sources.
  • Ensure that the relevant articles on redundancy in language are adequately sourced so that simply referring to them is proof against claims of WP:OR.
  • Ensure that the conclusions and notes in here are actually very basic logic deductions from the sourced "master" articles on this topic and general common knowledge, under WP:OR, and that random opinions haven't seeped in, of the "Well I think this isn't really redundant when..." sort. Terminate such things with extreme prejudice.
  • More eyes-and-brains are needed to go over the list and identify possible OR/blatantly constructed examples and remove them. Some of these slip in from time to time, things like "the knuckles on my/your/his/etc. hand" - i.e., phrases no one would actually say. Most of these have been weeded out, but the presently unsourced ones often look like this to non-native speakers of dialects in which they are in fact very common.
  • {{Fact}}-tag assertions such as "except in British English, in which case..." and so forth.

Contents

[edit] Introduction

Some will be tempted to delete entries from this list, citing:

  1. Sentences in which the expressions can be used without redundance;
  2. Rationalizations as to why the portion deemed superfluous actually adds meaning.

My advice: unless you have language expertise, please don't delete--discuss it here first.

Regarding 1), there are indeed ways in which something like "future plans," say, can be used nonredundantly. But the common use is redundant.

Regarding 2), we have grown so accustomed to certain redundancies that we may balk at the notion some of those words are unneeded. To some it simply feels right, for example, to say "off of."

Relax. Say "off of" if you wish. Just recognize that with formal speech and writing some will prefer, for reasons of their own, "Get the cat off the couch."--NathanHawking 22:25, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting this page (round 3)

Redundancy is disputable for most of these expressions, not merely context-dependent. Furthermore, for every expression, there is the problem of proving that people do actually use it enough to make it notable; there is no sign that any attempt can or will ever be made to source this article. One can after all make up an infinite number of amusing redundant expressions, but it is just a game. I do not think this page has any chance of becoming an authoritative article. I think it is fundamentally unencyclopedic (though mildly thought-provoking) and is more suitable for a blog or homepage. It should be deleted. Zargulon 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Spot on Tompagenet 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I find it very amusing and could probably add countless more (yeah, that was intentional) examples, but there's no clear definition, as the author admits, no source and it will be a constant article for debate over what belongs and what doesn't. That seems to be the exact opposite (oops!) of what an encylopedia should be. Crunch 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Although there was a clear majority in favour of deletion, the admin decided that there was no consensus, so the page is kept. There was a strong consensus both among deleters and keepers that the redundant expressions needed sourcing. Am putting an unsourced tag. Zargulon 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't notice this before removing the tag. But I don't see any way in which this article can possibly cite any sources for this article. What, show an instance where each expression is used? (I'm probably missing something obvious, please point it out to me. Thanks.) -- Shreevatsa 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Since redundancy is disputable and context-dependent, a "redundant expression" should only appear in an encyclopedia if expert sources classify it as such, and vouch for the fact that it is actually used (rather than e. g. made-up for the sake of humour). I agree it is very unlikely such sources can be found, which is why I and most others were in favour of deleting this article altogether. The admin decided it should be kept, but that doesn't exempt it from carrying the "unsourced" health warning. Zargulon 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur that it should have an unsourced tag; that makes perfect sense. However, there are many such lists on Wikipedia, enough that even their naming and to a lesser extent their formatting is auto-standardizing, so I can't support the deletion idea. I see NO evidence, of any kind, that any alleged majority wants this article deleted. I see a PAIR of threads here suggesting deletion (one of which I just gave its own heading, since it was hidden as reply to a different topic, and no one had even noticed it!), vs. a much larger number of threads intelligently debating and commenting on the formatting of the list, what should or shouldn't be on it, etc. The deleleters appear to be clearly outvoted on that basis, by people interested enough to post something about improving the article. End of story, in my book. As for sourcing, there are a variety of grammar books, style guides, usage guides, books on logic, etc. that could be cited. And specific examples could be given citations as well, the way many dictionaries provide examples of usage from quoted sources. But that's a lot of work, so I wouldn't expect it to happen soon. Lastly, there's no such thing as an "admin" here. The guy who started this article appears to have moved on to other things; he stopped posting at the end of 2004. I'm not claiming his role (which wasn't "official" anyway), but I enjoy the article and work on it every so often. I certainly look for bogus, constructed examples and remove them (with one exception being the "dé jà vu all over again" Yogiism, which I left in because it is very well known - people will definitely look for it - and it serves as a convenient platform to launch people into the Yogiisms and Farberisms articles if that's the sort of thing they are looking for; that entry has a meta-purpose. If it engenders too many Yogiism posts, we can remove it, but this hasn't been a problem to date. If it becomes one, a short para or section at end explaining what Yogiisms and Farberisms are, with links to them, can be added at the bottom, instead.) I've read the list top-to-bottom tonight, and do not find any implausible examples in it. I've heard or read at least 98% of them myself, and the remaining standouts appear to me to be plausible dialectal usages (I don't consider myself to be in a position to say they aren't, since I don't know every single [caught that one!] dialect of English.) --SMcCandlish 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Smcc, please read the deletion thread discussion. It is linked to at the top of this talk page. You will see that a clear majority voted for a deletion, and despite Wikipedia not being a democracy, I feel we had all the winning arguments and the page should have been deleted. In particular your argument that this page should not be deleted because there are many lists of similar or lower encylopedic credentials, was brought up and no-one expressed agreement. I personally don't think it is a very good argument, and it is easy to see how applying it could lower Wikipedia's standards considerably. It would suggest an enterprising wikipedian could only delete a lousy page if he were prepared attempt the impossible task of finding every other lousy page of a similar type and trying to delete them, which is clearly unreasonable. However if you think there are other lists which ought to be deleted please let me know and maybe we can work together on getting them deleted. Zargulon 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, didn't noticed the deletion nomination link. OK, so I see 11 for deletion, 8 against (would've been 9 if I'd gotten there in time). Not much of a majority, and absolutely a "no consensus" result. If you hate this article that much, nominate it for deletion again and see if the results are different this time. <shrug> I don't really care that much. While the list exists, I'm going to continue trying to improve it. PS: If you actually count the arguments for deletion vs. keeping, you get very different results (though I'm not going to get into an analysis of the weight of those arguments). There seem to be few reasons to delete it, all of which "keepers" at least attempt to refute. Curious. --SMcCandlish 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
They don't really attempt to refute the arguments for deletion.. they just keep repeating "the page is interesting/informative/should be kept", which doesn't constitute an attempted refutation. I don't intend to renominate this page for deletion, since I wouldn't expect to get a different result. I can't deny I'm disappointed for wikipedia that it wasn't deleted, but I'm not sure why you suppose I hate this page. I have consistently said that its content is inappropriate for wikipedia, and nothing more.. it is slightly worrying if you interpret that as an expression of hatred. Feel free to continue to work on the list. The only thing I will insist on is liberal health warnings about its non-authoritative nature. Zargulon 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Already agreed the unsourced tag was a good idea. And sorry, I did not mean to impute extreme emotional motives to you; I was using "hate" in an ironic sense. However, I think that the fact that "keepers" find the article useful, informative, interesting, etc., is in fact a refutation of the claim that the article is fundamentally non-encyclopedic (though perhaps not a particularly strong argument in that direction.) One could just as well say that the "deleters" keep repeating "It's not encyclopedic". Noting that the opinions were repeated isn't particularly instructive here. I have rather more "meta" thoughts on this topic, but I'm not sure this is the time/place to air them. PS: Moving this to the top, since it seems to be the hottest topic in this Talk and I'm tired of scrolling to find it.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The deleters do more than "keep repeating it's not encyclopedic".. rather they give specific reasons that it does not belong in wikipedia: unsourceability, original research, non-authoritative nature, plus others. In saying the article is interesting, however, the keepers do not provide a justification for it being in wikipedia or a refutation to the deleters arguments that it should not be. There are many interesting things which do not belong in wikipedia, I'm sure you would agree. I'm a little uneasy with the reorganization of the talk page.. shouldn't it have been a case of archiving stuff that was no longer in use? Anyway, no big deal. Zargulon 11:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if anything the rearrangement helps your position - the dispute is at the top, and one "Delete this article!" thread which had no title at all now has one. :-) I can't find any "rules" about ordering of Talk pages, and see them get re-organized pretty often on busy topics <shrug>. Didn't feel there was enough volume to start an archival process. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: The rearrangement is consistent with Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Zargulon 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Unsourceability: It's not unsourceable, just presently unsourced. It would be time-consuming but probably otherwise trivial to replace each example phrase with one sourced from, say, a newspaper or book (many dictionaries do this with illustrative quotes included with definitions). The extant list, I believe, is explary enough of genuinely common usages to do that. Original research: such as...? Myself as well as others have been pretty vigilant for clearly constructed silly examples. Non-authoritative: without going into whether anything in Wikipedia at all can really be considered authoritative (heh), I'd ask whether this list is no more or less authoritative than any other list of examples on Wikipedia (List of musical instruments, etc.) Does that make it (and all of them) automatically non-encyclopedic? Even paper encyclopedias are full of lists of things that fall under the category of this subject or that, but I'd venture that few of them are actually complete (a list of known elements of matter at the time of publishing, yes, but even something as straightforward as a list of countries/nations isn't likely to be complete or "authoritative" because there are legitimate reasons to disagree about definitions in the latter case, and the target is moving too quickly in the former.) Most encyclopedias under categories like "American authors" or "Roman sculpture" will provide lists of examples (often cross referenced to more specific articles), but these lists are necessarily incomplete and no more authoritative than the opinion of the person(s) assembling the list. This doesn't seem to make them too non-encyclopedic to include in encyclopedias. However, I'm not entirely certain I trust this argument; I present it in a half-way devil's advocate stance. Perhaps the particular sort of list the redundant expressions on is, is in some way different from those paper-encyclopedia examples, and thus the comparison is maybe apples-and-oranges. I'm not really going to opine further on that. The meta-level thoughts I mentioned earlier are along the lines of whether Wikipedia should/is/can be limited to being *precisely* like a paper encyclopedia in the first place. It's a different medium. That's a whole discussion of its own, really, probably best for a Talk page about Wikipedia itself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it really is unsourceable. Who is to say whether a given expression is redundant or widely used? There is no authority on this.. unlike in the case of countries, musical instruments, Roman sculptures or American authors where the vast majority of cases can be referenced from atlases etc. etc. which reflect consensus between many different experts. Controversial cases arise, but they are the exception rather than the rule. For so-called redundant expressions, every case is controversial. You could not source them, and it is telling that you haven't. This page should vanish without trace. Zargulon 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You're raising a couple of different issues here, addressed in turn: 1) "Who is to say:" Well, who is to say about anything on this entire site? That a particular entry can be controversial doesn't automagically make it bound for deletion. If you think it appropriate, there are additional warning tags one can add, regarding neutrality-in-dispute, etc. 2) "Widely used": I think the appearance of such phrases in mainstream publications (the solution I proposed) would be evidence enough of their "commonality" ("common", I believe, is the term that the article actually uses) - such publications are not likely to print things that would not be parsed by their readers. Seems to be good enough for several editions of Webster's and various other dictionaries & thesauri, so why not here? 3) "No authority": I believe you missed my above point entirely - I was talking about the _subjectivity_ of lists of various sorts that appear in all printed encs. - what to include or exclude is pretty much entirely up to the author of the article or section (and their editors) and no more "authoritative" than any other such list, whether it appear on a website, a space probe (that's a real example by the way), or a bathroom stall. 4) "Exception rather than the rule": In general the point's well taken - and I already said I was half-way devil's advocating anyway - but you're not really convincing me. That no one takes issue with, say, a list of "famous" or "notable" Roman statues in Britannica doesn't mean that everyone agrees that this is a complete/adequate/accurate/appropriate/whatever list of them! Wikipedia by very stark contrast to paper encs. provides a mechanism for direct public feedback, so controvery and disagreement has a natural and immediate channel. This is a rather unique feature among encyclopedias (not counting Wikipedia clones). 5) "Every case is controversial": Not actually true. So many of the examples are clearly — utterly clearly — redundant as to be beyond question. If the sentence conveys the same meaning without the struck-through text, there's not much of a question about it. And I note that the talk page has a surprisingly limited number of quibbles in this regard, most of which have been resolved, or were not of interest to anyone but the quibbler (cf. point 2 above, which relates to this in a side-band way). 6) "It is telling that you haven't [sourced the examples]": How so? I have real work to do! So do most of us. As I noted myself, it would be quite a lot of work to actually source everything. I proposed a style borrowed from other "authoritative" works, but that doesn't mean I'm volunteering to do all the work! Lastly, 7) "This page should vanish without trace": Already voted on and "decisively inconclusive" if I may say something almost oxymoronic. I'm not sure what you mean by "should", then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You are filibustering, and doing so by repeating arguments which have already been decisively answered. Do you work in congress, or as a lawyer? Zargulon 07:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't answer "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 00:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. If only you had been as economical with words when writing the preceding paragraphs.. Zargulon 07:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I get the complaint. You raised a rather far-ranging laundry list of issues, and I addressed them (rather precisely) in the order they were presented. I think it would've been discourtetous if not outright disingenuous to address only one or two of them and pretend that I'd addressed them all. That's a common fallacious debate tactic on Usenet and mailing lists; but it's one that I don't agree with. I'd rather be complete and tumid, than brief but hand-waving., I'm honestly not sure what you meant by my arguments being allegedly repetitive; I don't see most of them raised here. Maybe you mean that they were raised in the AfD discussion? I wasn't party to that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Party or not, it is difficult to see how you expected to participate usefully in the debate without familiarizing yourself with the AfD discussion. I also still maintain that your contributions in this section have been overwhelmingly long, verbose, and where intelligible, redundant with the AfD or simply repetitive. It is not a 'complaint', just an observation; but I speculate that, despairing of legitimately defending this page, you are trying to create a smokescreen of impenetrable text so that future editors will balk at reading it, like in the AfD, default to 'keep'. I strongly advise you that this will not work and encourage you to stop wasting your time. Zargulon 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I did familiarize myself with the AfD debate, and remarked upon it elsewhere already on this very page. I did not memorize everything said in it. If you found some of the above duplicative of it, sorry. Personally, I find this entire discussion to be a repeat of the AfD vote; the pot's calling the kettle black. <shrug> Next, I don't agree with your logic regarding the AfD. Even assuming for the sake of argument that my text is "impenetrable", I did not participate in the AfD discussion, and reading it again now, I don't find any of it, pro or con, difficult to understand, so your use of "impenetrable...like in the AfD" strikes me as a handwave to lead the reader to conclusions not actually supported by evidence. The AfD discussion was quite clear, and quite clearly not sufficiently in support of deletion. It's really as simple as that. I don't know why you insist on imputing sinister motives to me, as you have above. Lastly, your "strong advice" is in reference to a strawman of your own creation. I've already stated repeatedly here that I really don't care whether this page survives. My only interest in it is that it make sense for as long as it IS a part of Wikipedia. It was in a very sorry state when I arrived at it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't impute sinister motives to you. Pathetic ones, perhaps. I didn't mean impenetrable .. like in the AfD, I meant the page would be kept by default (rather than on merit) like in the AfD. Given that you don't care if this page survives, I wish you would put it in a blog instead.. you have worked hard and clearly have something to say, and I have no doubt you would entertain very many people. Please don't reformat this edit, the current level of indentation is making reading hard. Zargulon 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As you wish. The indentation levels are informative, even if they make reading more difficult. But, yeah I agree that they do in fact make reading more difficult, so I'm willing to start over. Anyway, to return to the original theme of the thread: "[F]or every expression, there is the problem of proving that people do actually use it enough to make it notable; there is no sign that any attempt can or will ever be made to source this article." I've started providing sourceable quotes, and at least one other editor has followed suit (with the recent addition of the "a.m. in the morning" Bush quote), so I think we are on the right track. As for the blog idea, I think that would actually be pretty fun, but I'm not a blogger and don't really have any plans to start. I'm happy with the article as-is for now, though I have sympathetic leanings toward what seems to be your general position that lists of this sort are, in one or more ways, simply not encyclopedic and don't belong here. I'd consider doing the work of relocating all this content to a blog at some point if the community really does want this article removed (and have no objections to someone else doing it, now). Sounds like something to revisit around Jan. 2007 (a year after the first AfD vote). I think the issue is quite larger than this one article, though. There are many, many such lists. They need a home, and if Wikipedia.org isn't it, then what is? It needs to be dependable project that can be reliably linked to for years to come. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A fair comment, and I respect the fact that you (and that other guy) have started sourcing usage for some of these expressions. (I feel that sourcing the fact that they are redundant will always be challenging for all but the most obvious howlers, maybe you agree..) I concur that lists like these constitute a widespread issue within Wikipedia, and please don't hesitate to let me know if you get involved in any such discussions about it; I would like to help. Zargulon 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting this page (round 2)

This page should probably be deleted as many of the entries are innapropriately listed as redundant (the phrase free pass is in no way redundant for instance, there is no part of the concept "pass" that implies cost or lack therof) and those listed as redundant acronyms are already on the pages for RAS Syndrome, Tautology, or Pleonasm, making this page itself redundant. Actually it might be worth keeping simply for that reason, but the points stand. -- [?? - did not sign post]

1) Read the intro, please. Just because the word "pass" has other meanings than that implied by the phrase "free pass" doesn't make that phrase any less redundant; this is a list of phrases, not words. "I have a pass to see Spiderman III" means precisely the same thing as "I have a free pass to see Spiderman III" to any native English speaker.
2) Just because you don't agree with an example or two (or twenty) on the list doesn't mean it "should probably" be deleted. Instead of complaining, try to improve the list, either with better examples, or with clarifying notes (see discussions on these topics, elsewhere on this page; the short versions being: don't delete something just because you can think of exceptions to its redundancy, and we are now adding explanatory comments if they seem needed [though a change of opinion on their worth might lead to their eventual removal. Who knows?] Not to mention it really could use some reference citations, and as many examples as possible should be quoted from published instances with full references.
3) Actually, I'm the principal editor of the Pleonasm article at this point, and it does not provide a RAS list, just a couple of examples and a link to the article on that topic [and is still this way - I revered an edit that added a pointless RAS list just the other day — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 22:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)]. Tautology does not provide a RAS list either either and isn't all that closely-related a concept in the first place (redundancy > tautology; not all redundancies are tautological). And finally, the RAS list on the page under discussion isn't really a list, it's just some examples, demonstrating the two (so far) kinds of acronymic redundancies, only one of which is covered under the RAS syndrome article. The RAS list on this page probably could be shortened - it is longer than it needs to be but not long enough to replace the RAS syndrome article. But it's pretty amusing, and no one else is objecting. --Smccandlish 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting this page (round 1)

  1. Wikipedia is not a usage guide (see #4).
  2. No sources are cited, and this page likely represents original research and opinion.
  3. Many grammar institutions do not treat these as improper usage, and the disclaimer (about these not always being true) demonstrates that this is very subjective. General rules of grammar are fine, but its more important to evaluate these in context rather than broken out like this.

-- Netoholic @ 18:15, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing this page should be a candidate for deletion?
  1. List of redundant expressions is not a prescriptive guide to usage. The article goes out of its way to avoid prescription of correctness. It is a list of FACTS, terms which are, in some contexts, conceptual redundancies.
  2. Virtually every example used can be found in some grammarian's list of redundancies somewhere. Pick a few and do a search.
  3. Nor does this article treat these as "improper usage." Can't get much plainer than this:
NOTE: Some of these phrases may not be redundant in other contexts. Their presence on this list does not deem them "incorrect" or mean they should never be used in speech or writing. (Changed to:)
NOTE: Some of these phrases may not be redundant in other contexts. The presence of an example does not deem it "incorrect" or necessarily preclude it from use in speech or writing—each must be assessed in the context of its use and by the standards one applies to that context. --NathanHawking 02:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
The reader is left to judge whether a term is "proper" or not for his or her own use. The value of the list is that it creates awareness of how many ordinary expressions can be redundant, but it leaves the decision about whether an example constitutes a problem in a given context to the reader.
Take the "currently undergoing" I edited on your InUse template pages. That's a redundancy, especially when the text makes it clear that a page is InUse for 5 minutes, 30 minutes, etc. We may disagree about whether it's important enough to delete but the identification is a grammatical fact.
In my view, there is no arguing with the general factual content of the list, with its nonprescriptive balance, with the fact that grammarians frequently make such lists of their own, and with the fact that Wikipedia hosts a List of clichés and List of oxymorons which are in places poorly organized but nevertheless useful. --NathanHawking 20:18, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

[edit] OK usage

Should it be avoided to use redundant expressions in English? I would say it is some sort of figure of speech, which should be avoided in scientific articles, but can enhance prose and similar. --Abdull 12:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

English being what it is, I'd say you're safe to write whatever you think is best. If you don't like the redundancy of the expressions (or you think that your work will be looked down upon by others as a result of their use), don't use them. If you don't think it'll matter, feel free to. - Flooey 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place Names

Are these welcome on the list? In the United Kingdom, the use of Lake Windermere is a common tautology; the '-mere' suffix already carrying the meaning of lake (as in Buttermere). Robdurbar 10:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, see the article List of tautological place names --Smccandlish 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

This is an excellent list. I commend NathanHawking on its creation and hope to see many more contributions. I have only one problem with it — it uses HTML formatting to cite redundant text, rather than Wiki markup. This raises a barrier to community contribution and causes problems for global Wiki formatting practices, including periodic automated revisions. Is there a compelling reason for doing this? — Jeff Q 15:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jeff, anyone who opens the edit window can see 200 examples of how to make the extra redundant word "<small>small</small>", the only HTML. The tag is clearly referenced as acceptable in the Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page guide.
I used the small letters to give a sense of "removal" without actually removing the word. It may be no better than parens or italics--or maybe it is--but it seems no worse. --NathanHawking 21:15, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
NathanHawking, you have explained how the use of <small> element is not especially difficult, but not why it is compelling; i.e., why standard Wiki markup for emphasis is not used for emphasis. (Of course, I just gave you one — you're trying to de-emphasize!) And How to edit a page makes the concession for its use for captions only. I made this comment because it seems a bad precedent for overriding standard Wiki practice, but I concede it is just my opinion. The discussion pages (current and archive) for "How to edit a page" are curiously silent on this particular aspect of HTML use. — Jeff Q 00:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
De-emphasize is exactly right, and what I meant by 'a sense removal without removing.' I feel the 'small' tag does that beautifully. The reference actually says "You can use small text for captions," and it seems overreaching to say this is a "concession for its use for captions only." I see no restriction, expressed or implied. I understand the desirability of Wiki markup, but even with such markup now available for, say, tables the guides do not seem to deprecate the use of HTML--even citing the ability to format HTML table code as an advantage over the more compact Wiki-pipe code. If things like the small tag are ever abandoned, search-and-replace with an equivalent is a simple database issue. (Thanks, by the way, for your kind initial remarks about the page.)--NathanHawking 00:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Quite a while ago (two months?) I switched it to <strike>...</strike>, and no one has seemed to mind, so this topic should probably be moved to the archive, as it appears to be moot. NB: 1) <small> does not work when people set their browsers to not permit font sizes to go smaller than some arbitrary preferred font size; and 2) it's an accessibility mistake - screen readers for the blind do not generally speak things differently based on font size, but will note that material has been struck through. --Smccandlish 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I'm tempted to get rid of the separate "American English" and "Non-American English" sections, as:

  • just about all of them apply equally in American English, British English or any other dialect
  • the "Non-American English" section is empty at the moment
  • the dichotomy is hardly NPOV
  • it becomes tricky for a non-American to add stuff to the list, if they have to worry about whether the redundancy exists in American English as well.

-- Smjg 17:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Makes no difference to me if the divisions are:
  • Redundancies common to all forms of English
  • American English redundancies
  • British English redundancies
  • South African English redundancies
Or whatever. The point was to 1) encourage thought about differences, 2) preclude having unfamiliar idiom removed.
Remember, this isn't a list of every imaginable or obscure term, but of common ones. Bloating it with obscurities and inventions would diminish its value. In one article a contributor used several examples of redundancy I removed as obscure (after asking on the talk page if they were UKisms, with no response), virtually unknown in the U.S. They were:
  • essential necessity
  • nonreading illiterates
  • wet water
If anyone can confirm those as oft-used UKisms, I'd list them. Otherwise, if they were entered in the list I'd probably delete them as obscure. --NathanHawking 21:15, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
You have a point. But I still consider my points valid. Maybe we should get rid of the sections for now. Then, if we establish that some of them are Americanisms, Britishisms, South Africanisms or whatever, we could split it into sections while retaining a 'main' section for expressions not (yet?) identified as dialectal. -- Smjg 09:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That makes some sense, especially since no idiomatic forms have emerged. I was trying to preclude a problem with regional bias, but my solution, in retrospect, has the appearance of American vs. Everyone Else, doesn't it? The only way I can presently see to distinguish regionalisms from the generally obscure is to ask around on an individual basis if an entry strikes those maintaining the list as a candidate for deletion. I'm open to suggestion here. --NathanHawking 18:56, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
For what it's worth (which may be little or much, depending on whether you accept my quasi-role as "the person who seems to care most about this article" in NathanHawking's year+ absence), I agree that categorization by dialect would be difficult and frustrating. I do like the beginnings I see of a more functional categorization, like the acronyms being at the bottom (which I've been enforcing every few weeks). I think some addl. categories could be added; at least two: "useless word" redundancies ('get the cat off of the couch") and duplicative concept redundancies ("planning for the future is essential to our survival"). --Smccandlish 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refinement

The list looks like it could do with refining or classification. Some examples do add information - eg "bald" is not always the same as "bald-headed". Others clearly provide emotional meaning, especially emphasis, eg "finally ended" for "ended". Others seem more genuinely redundant, simply habits of speech, eg "as yet" instead of just "yet"

Please read the Introduction at the top of this talk page, and the introductory remarks in the list itself.

  1. The way "bald-headed" is commonly used it is redundant. Bald: lacking hair on all or most of the scalp. [1] That it may be somehow used in a non-redundant way doesn't change the common (mis)use of the term.
  2. Emphasis indeed adds meaning, but it is the use of a redundancy for meaning. A redundancy "repeat(s) an idea," the intro says--exactly what "finally ended" does, whether emphatic use or not.
  3. A redundancy is a redundancy, whether a habit or not. Redundant can simply also mean "excess."
  4. If you have any specific suggestions as to how the list might be better organized, by all means present them here. Just remember, this is not a grammar text--it's a list. Explanation, I think, belongs elsewhere. --NathanHawking 10:42, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

[edit] Comments/Explanations

Anthony Appleyard added a contribution and appended explanation on a couple of entries. Thanks.

  1. I'm removing the commentary, however, because I fear it would bloat and complicate the list. This is first and foremost a list, not a tutorial or grammar text. Explanation, I feel, belongs--and is--in grammar articles. If anyone feels we should explain each entry I'll listen to arguments, though.
  2. The existing style uses both (or several) words of a redundant phrase. Anthony's contribution was "The vandal slashed 34 separate tyres," which has the problem of a number which could be anything and the word separate, under which he alphabetized the entry. I had already used "______" to indicate an unspecified number, so moved his entry at the top under "_____ separate." The meaning is apparent at a glance.
  3. I changed the UK "tyres" to "tires," since the article uses American spellings in the U.S. list. Any non-U.S.-specific examples which emerge should, of course, use their own spellings. --NathanHawking 10:25, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
1 I didn't originally see this particular point on the Talk list, or might not have added various comments/explanations, two years after the above was written. In two or so months no one has complained. Nathan appeared to be exerting a lot of force-of-personality to keep the list going as he'd intended it, but he's seemingly no longer participating here. I actually like and care about the list, and have been trying to keep it clean of junk. If this particular discussion starts up again and the majority want to remove the comments/explanations (or edit them to be more dry, or whatever), I'm not likely to object.
2 I replaced Nathan's ambiguous "______" usages with more specific things like "[number]", "[verb]", etc. I think this is a definite enhancement. --Smccandlish 07:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal mumbo-jumbo

In addition to "null and void" there's "cease and desist" and "assault and battery". I'm guessing these have special meanings in law, but otherwise they seem redundant. Any thoughts on whether they should be included? dbtfztalk 10:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. My personal opinion is that they should be included, with pretty much precisely the same usage note attached to them as for "null and void". Non-lawyers (probably through the influence of cops-'n'-robbers and legal-drama TV shows) have internalized these phrases without fully understand their meaning (understandably, since they are rarely explained in any detail), and then parrot them in contexts that frequently render them rendundant. For those that don't grok the differences, to "cease" is to stop, and to "desist" is to not do it again. "Assault" is attempted harm [though the definition has been stretched quite a bit in recent decades, at least in US jurisprudence, to include things most would consider simply physically offensive rather than directly harmful], while "battery" is success in delivering that harm - the difference between taking a swing and landing the punch, as it were. If I recall correctly, the difference between "null" and "void" is that the former means, in a legal context, "invalidated as it presently stands", while "void" means "considered to have never had any legal force at all", i.e. "vacated", another legal term-of-art. Despite having worked with lawyers for a decade, I'm sure I've missed some nuances that probably hinge on specific facts of caselaw and so on, and I'd be happy to be schooled in the fine distinctions, though this isn't necessarily the forum for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Highly intelligent"

What does anyone think about including 'highly intelligent' on this list? I find this possibly the most annoying pointless expression in the English language. People say 'highly intelligent' without thinking what they're saying. What is wrong with 'very intelligent'? Of course tehre are gradations of intelligence but 'highly' has become such a meaningless word in this context that I feel it deserves inclusion. what does anyone else think? wildeep 18/5/05

Then the use of "highly" would not necessarily be redundant, just an inadvisable use as an intensive. It would seem to me that "highly intelligent" = "of high intelligence". If "highly" meant "intelligent", it would be indeed redundant. SigPig 17:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally use "highly intelligent" (or "very intelligent") to mean "significantly intelligent", that is to say, someone of the 99th or 100th percentile. I myself am 91st percentile and reckon myself to be "fairly" intelligent (and I also reckon that those who know me tend to overrate my intelligence).

[edit] "PIN number"

"PIN number" is not redundant when talking: a pin is also a small sharp metal object.Anthony Appleyard 09:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"PIN number" is still redundant, Anthony, because the phrase actually means, when the roots of the acronym are expanded, "Personal Identification Number number." (See [2].) But as you point out, the expanded phrase is used to avoid confusion with a sharp pin or with a pen. It's technically a redundancy, but the ambiguity problem makes it a fairly necessary one. Bear in mind that this is a list of common redundancies, not grammatic condemnation of particular phrases. Including phrases which are redundancies but nevertheless a generally accepted part of the language is a good idea. --NathanHawking 19:21, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
Necessary? Can't one say "PINumber"? :-) Not to mention that "PIN number" taken literally means a number by which a PIN is in turn designated.... -- Smjg 14:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Pin number" literally means "Personal Identification Number number," thus is conceptually redundant. If you wish to pronounce it "pinumber" and are understood, go for it. Maybe it will catch on. "PIN number" is a common enough expression, though, and serves the purpose. Noting that it's redundant does not make it "incorrect."--NathanHawking 22:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
You can say "PI Number" if you also agree to say "AT Machine". -- shilgia, 24 Sep 2006
Yet another thing that spoken "PIN number" doesn't disambiguate from is numbers identifying the pins of computer peripheral connectors. -- Smjg 10:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"PIN number" is typically spoken as separate words, not slurred together... just as "NIC card" is typically spoken as separate words. Wahkeenah 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Different views" example

I removed the "different views" contribution because I'm unable to think of a use where it would be a redundancy. "We had different views on the subject" would not be. "We had two different views on the subject" would include a redundancy, but the redundancy is "two different", not "different views." --NathanHawking 00:50, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

That's only redundant if you already know that there are only two people being talked about. If it's a large group, could "two different views" indicate that the group is split between two opposing views?
Similarly, surely it's "back to the time of Columbus" that's redundant rather than "dates back". We know what it means if something "dates back 300 years", but if we drop "back", could it mean 300 years into the future? -- Smjg 10:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True. "She and I had two different views" would lock it in as redundant, whereas--as you point out--we could be referring to a larger group. That's one of the challenges of listing redundancies and of writing example sentences, avoiding a ready interpretation which is nonredundant. I rewrote the 'two different' example to reflect your observation. Thanks.
Perhaps I'm taking it too far, but couldn't it be said that "she and I" had a multitude of different views? One could refer to one's "view" as a sort of general mindset, but it can also mean a specific opinion on a certain issue. "She and I had different views on just about everything." Not necessarily redundant, in my opinion. Cheers. Exo314 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The Columbus example is a bit trickier. To "date" something is, in this sort of context, "to show the age of," or to place an existent in the stream of time, necessarily in the past or present unless we're time-travelling. When something clearly not contemporary "dates" it is necessarily "back."
o In The pot goes back to Columbus the prepositional phrase gives additional information about goes back--how far.
o In The pot dates to Columbus the prepositional phrase gives additional information about dates--how far.
o In The pot dates back to Columbus the back simply repeats the "backness" inherent in "dates" in the context of a Columbian time frame.
At least, I think that's what happening. Make sense? --NathanHawking 19:38, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

[edit] "Asking a question"

In the example "If you need information, don't hesitate to ask (a question)", surely the bracketed term can't be considered redundant since without it the sentence doesn't make any sense. While people will probably understand what's meant, it seems to me that the using the sentence without the word is an ellipsis rather than using the sentence with the word being a redunancy. --Thomas 19:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edit: Likewise for "I get up (at) about noon", "We watched the bear climb up the tree." "They celebrated their golden wedding anniversary." and others, but it's a rather long list to check --Thomas 19:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"If you need information, don't hesitate to ask." makes complete sense. What else would one be "asking" when seeking information if not a question? That's inherent in this kind of asking, by definition. See [3].
Similarly, one gets up inherently "at" some particular time, climbing is usually consider "up" unless down is specified, and a "golden anniversary" for a couple is inherently about a wedding commemoration. Adding at, up and wedding adds nothing to these sentences not already implied by context.--NathanHawking 20:28, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
Equally though, saying "pint, anyone?" in a pub would be understood as asking whether anyone wanted a pint, and so adding "do you want a" to the beginning of the sentence could be called redundant. However it's the former rather than the latter which is a modification, although I do accept the "ask" part having read that definition. I do think though, that with a list as long as it is (is anybody going to read it all for reference?) it would be better to shorten rather than lengthen it--Thomas 17:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe there's a fundamental difference. Consider this example:
Where are you going?
I am going to the mall. vs.
To the mall.
Note that there is nothing in the denotation of the words "to the mall" which implies "I am going," thus there is no conceptual redundancy. At most it is wordiness which derives entirely from context. Contrast this with:
I am going to the shopping mall.
In some places, a mall is by nature a place for shopping, so the word shopping is redundant. "I am going to the mall" suffices. The redundancy derives not from context but from the meaning of the words.
I fail to see any possible advantage to shortening the list.--NathanHawking 02:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

[edit] Is "complete monopoly" still redundant?

By the dictionary and law this phrase is redundant. The way the term monopoly is being used these days it is becoming necessary for clarification. It is quite common to hear monopoly used to mean "a near-monopoly" as well as a true monopoly.

The obvious example is Microsoft. They are not a monopoly, but because they have such a large portion of the market and use anti-competitive tactics they are often called one.

To make a distinction between the common use of "monopoly" and a true monopoly, I would say the "complete" serves a useful, non-redundant purpose.

(I forgot to sign my talk entry.) --Klhuillier 05:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Separate out"

My favorite is missing from the list: separate out

As separate means "To set or keep apart; disunite" then it's rather difficult to separate something in. Webhat 09:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "WASP"

How can the "white" in WASP be redundant? Black Anglo-Saxon Protestants are certainly possible. — JIP | Talk 06:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say so, too (this phrase actually containing at least 3 redundant expressions). --Abdull 12:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Huh?! Unless "Anglo-Saxon" has some special meaning I'm blissfully unaware of, it means, and always refers to one of the following: 1) Ethnically English (as distinct from British in general) person(s) or ethnically non-English persons born n English, 2) person(s) descended from the Angles and Saxons (e.g. Frisians as well as the English), 3) (imprecisely) Germanic person(s), or 4) (incorrectly) "White" person(s). In every single case the "White" is redundant (not withstanding persons of mixed race who may be both Anglo-Saxon (by whatever meaning) and "Black"; WASP is a generalizaton/stereotype, so it automatically elides the exceptions.) I've been thinking about this one for a very long time, and the only conclusion I can come up with is that it is what I call a "forced acronym" (cf. "USA-PATRIOT Act as probably the most egregious example of all time): Someone liked the way "WASP" looked and tried to find words to put in there that WASP could expand to. Given that it's basically a racial slur, I'm surprised that the double entendre of "ASP" wasn't chosen instead! ("Forced acronym" seems to be a term I and many other people independently invented. On a whim I just googled it for the first time [I almost added "ever" there! gahhhh...], and found many hits. It's neat when that happens. I guess I'm not crazy after all!) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that this is left-to-right evaluation: So "white" is the first cut, of those that are left "anglo-saxon" excludes French, Danish, Celtic etc. and finally "protestant" excludes any Roman Catholics. Blue painted (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "New construction"

Doesn't there exist old constructions?

I certainly can't see the redundancy in "We slowed for the new highway construction", but my native laguage is not english, so I might be missing something. Is it always implied that a construction is new? -Mortal 4 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

See previous topics that address this. The existence of nonredundant counter-examples (e.g. "The old construction work at 123 Main Street was torn down, and new construction began last monday") doesn't invalidate an entry in this list, because this list is about redundancies in general usage. In everyday speech, "We slowed for the new highway construction" is certainly redundant because (at least to a native English speaker), "We slowed for the highway construction" conveys precisely the same meaning, unless there is a special context (e.g. construction has been going on for some time and it wasn't ever necessary to slow down [caught that one myself!] for it, until this new phase began and got in the way of traffic.) --Smccandlish 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, "new highway construction" refers to the building of a new road, as opposed to repairs to an existing highway. - Michael J 14:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pleonastic Tautology", anyone?

[This appears to have been a suggestion for the addition of the definitely constructed example "pleonastic tautology" to the list, which thankfully does not appear. But there may have been an actual discusssion here which was removed. There was nothing in this section but the section heading when I arrived. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] "GPS System" example

At least in the example given, I think that GPS system is fine. GPS generally refers solely to the satellite constellation and the signals that come from them, thus a GPS receiver being called a "GPS system" would be accurate, as it is a system for using the Global Positioning System (much in the same vein as an "anti-missile missile" or such things). I think an example like "The government launched a new set of satellites for the GPS system" would be more appropriate. - Flooey 21:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Conforming edit made. --Smccandlish 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not really redundant

I think the following may have to be better explained:

  • bouquet of flowers: I think this is only redundant with the general term "flowers" (since this is wat bouquet assumes). If it is anything other than flowers (like balloons) or any specific type of flowers (roses, orchids, etc), you can specify without fear of redundancy.
  • golden wedding anniversary: anniversaries are not necessarily about weddings. American Heritage even uses the term "wedding anniversary"[4], while Merriam-Webster does not even mention weddings[5]
  • time clock: "Time clock" is actually a term for the particular clock you use to punch in/out on (wow, I just ended a sentence with three prepositions!). [6][time clock] While all clocks (presumably) tell time, a time clock is a specific type. "I want you to buy a clock for the office" will probably get you the standard timepiece you see on most walls. "I want you to buy a time clock for the office" will net you the doohickey with the time cards in it.

SigPig 12:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oopsies

Note to all: The edit I did here was only meant to flush out the "a.m. in the morning" entry; the deletion of "fall down", was accidental. Sorry, folks.

SigPig 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to assume it absolutely was intentional. I meant to allow for the possibility of accident in my edit summary, but i forgot (sorry), and then it was too late. and i was too lazy to research what to do (sorry), and too vain to try a kluge like slapping in a null-edit just to append another edit summary summary (sorry).

[Wikipedia Bummer: Edit summaries, even my own edit summaries, are uneditable. (Or are they??)]

I knew an edit conflict, as unlikely as it seemed (it had been almost 3 hours and only a one-line edit), was possible. There are other possible ways to accomplish an accidental undo, not even offered by the edit conflict page. 1) Leave a browser window open with an article for hours or days, and then edit that page without hitting Refresh first. or 2) On dial-up, load the page, start editing, disconnect, and then do stuff offline, including edit the page (no previews). Then dial in again, log in to Wikipedia in another window, and then save the page. or 3) Enjoy bad caching settings in your browser, local or dedicated proxy, or ISP caching. And lastly, when done editing under such lagging conditions, don't look for diffs.

I complex-reverted someone's bad joke once. The edit was intentional, but i did not make it a separate edit or explain it. I felt bad about it.

[Wikipedia Bummer: The edit system seems designed to create edit conflicts. It takes work to avoid them. When i've been previewing edits for two hours, towards the end i'll open the page's history IN A NEW WINDOW. If a new edit has appeared, then i have to review the diffs. If there are changes in the section that i have open (or in ANY section if i have the whole page open), then i have to start a new edit session from the new current version, and then roll in my changes (usually a simple Paste). When conflicts occur, Wikipedia lets the mess happen and then people have to "do the best they can".

Multi-user editing is a very old problem. I considered a long time ago the kinds of problems created, and the difficulty of resolution. "Last save wins" is the default "resolution" method provided by most computer operating systems, and the one used by Wikipedia. Add revision history, and no version is lost. Repair becomes possible too, but Repair only happens if people manually check and then manually resolve. Smarter resolution seems possible -- if a page is "checked back in" edited from an older version, then Wiki should try to resolve the conflict. It could reduce the new edit to a set of differences, and then try to play the differences into the file. Most times, that will be possible, and the resolution would be seamless. Multiple users could open the same file, make changes in different parts of it, and then blindly save changes, while retaining a good probability that all changes will be automatically preserved. Smarter automatic resolution would solve most edit conflicts. If the automatic resolution succeeds, Wikipedia should warn me that an edit conflict occured and was resolved automatically. If the automatic resolution fails, Wikipedia could fall back to the default model, and warn me that i just stepped on other edits, AND note the fact in the file history so that people don't think a complex revert has happened.

Wikipedia already allows edits of Sections of pages, which greatly reduces the chance of conflict, but does not eliminate it. One small deficiency still forces edits of entire pages. (It should probably remain necessary to edit the entire page in order to move words between sections.) There is no edit link for the Intro. Editing the Intro forces me to open the whole page even if i don't want to.]

(These last suggestions probably belong elsewhere, where they might help save important edits to important content.)

-Whiner01 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i took my suggestion and pasted the (edited) technical details about edit conflict to the discussion page for Edit Conflict under Meta [7]. (I still don't where to comment on / ask about uneditable edit comments.)

-Whiner01 03:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite all that being way off-topic, I found it pretty fascinating. Thanks in particular for the wikilinks. Finding internal Wikipedia "debate" pages is a bit of a challenge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 04:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

Someone removed the disputed tag, claiming there was no discussion of it on the talk page. The disputed tag was and is there because this page implies as fact that a certain list expressions are notably used redundant. In many cases, however, it is disputed either that they are redundant, or that they are notably used, or both. Therefore "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed". You can find abundant examples of such disputes on this talk page. Zargulon 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I (like I'm "special" or something - I think I'm simply the only one who cares about this article much, and I've even said I wouldn't weep if it failed a second AfD) didn't do it. I have zero objection to the template in question being put back. I tend to agree with the sentiment. I'm of half (well, OK, 9/20) a mind to dump EVERY example that does not have a source citation lik the ones I provided for several examples. Anyway, the only thing I've done with regard to wiggly-bracket warnings is move the Unsourced one to the Sources section where it belongs. Left the more blatant Disputed one alone. (Honestly, I don't think that's quite the right tag, but the right one doesn't exist yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compare & Contrast

I removed the following anonymous edit, because it doesn't fit the format of other examples, and because I am skeptical that it is correct. I'll put it in here for other discuss as to the latter issue; if it is found to be correct, putting it back in but consistently formatted with the rest of the list will be trivial:

  • compare and contrast: To compare is to examine both likenesses and differences. To contrast is to examine only differences. Therefore, to "compare and contrast" (as so many reading texts teach) is to "examine the likenesses and differences and differences" between or among things.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

While my junior high school lit teacher may not be an ideal citeable reference for Wikipedia...we were taught in school that compare focused on similarities and contrast focused on differences. So if we were instructed to compare two things in a work, we were to limit ourselves to citing similarities. To hackney a phrase, to compare apples and oranges would net you results as both are fruit, both have seeds, both hurt when copper-plated and dropped on your head from a great height, etc. The differences would also be explored when ordered to compare and contrast. Given their ubiquity in the classroom (at least while I was growing up, and from numerous pop-culture references), perhaps (and a very shaky perhaps) they have taken on the staus of what Fowler called "technical terms", in that they may have different meanings within a specific discipline than they would in everyday speech. --SigPig 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for pedantry's sake:
  • American Heritage's first definitrion of "compare" is "To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken." [8]. Merriam Webster's is "to represent as similar : LIKEN <shall I compare thee to a summer's day? -- Shakespeare>" [9]. Subsequent definitions under these entries subsume the use of the term "contrast". It may be that "compare and contrast" limits "compare" to this first definition; if so, the phrase is not redundant in that strict interpretation. Oh, and BTW, "compare and contrast" gets a cite from Webster's New Milennium Dict [10]. --SigPig 07:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds about right to me. I've always conceived of these as separate concepts, in precisely the way you outlined above; the fact that some people don't understand the difference and use the entire phrase to really just mean "contrast" doesn't make it redundant, just an indistinct usage. IMNERHO. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not even remotely redundant. If I said "compare these two documents", I'd expect a summary of similarities and differences. If I said "compare and contrast these two documents", I'd want the key differences to be brought out much more. Just because two ideas are similar doesn't make putting both of them in a sentence redundant - you may be expressing something by that repetition. Stevage 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New cites

I have been trying to cite the entries. The "I myself" etc are intensive pronouns and are standard English. However, they are indeed redundant, their very redundancy providing the intensiveness meant for emphasis. I hope that my usage note makes that clear enough.

If the redundancy has a purpose, there's no point it even being in this list - the list would be infinite. "Your brother Jim" is redundant if you only have one brother. "Would you be able to pass the salt" is redundant if you know that they can pass the salt. etc etc etc. Stevage 11:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I was torn between two entries for "unconfirmed rumo(u)r"; the one I selected was a piece in the NY Times on Chas. Lindbergh, 1927 no less. The one I didn't select is listed below. I liked it because it not only used "unconfirmed rumour" but also "established fact" in the same sentence! As well, it used "false and misleading"; doesn't false imply misleading? I think Mr Silber should get the Barnstar for Repeated Redundancy Barnstar!

"'Because he has continued to pursue this strategy, the false and misleading claim that Professor Remont was martyred because of his principled opposition to the Afghan Media Project is no longer treated in the press as an unconfirmed rumor but as an established fact,' Silber told the faculty." — Spencer S. Hsu, "B.U. President Attacks Dean's Role in Afghan Media Project", The Harvard Crimson, January 22, 1988

--SigPig 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

False isn't the same as misleading. "I am a giraffe" is not misleading - you never thought for a moment that I was really a giraffe. "As of Monday, I had not yet begun work at the bank" is misleading but not false - I'm not even remotely connected to any banks. "I sent the money on Tuesday" could be both: I actually sent the money on Wednesday, but in any case, not to you. Stevage 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suddenly explode(d)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=explode&db=* has some definitions that requires suddeness and some which don't. A bomb on a timer which can be seen by everone detonating as expected when the timer reaches zero could hardly be called sudden. A Geek Tragedy 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pair of twins

"I know twins" 3 of them, none related to another. "I know a pair of twins". This is not redundant. A Geek Tragedy 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on this one, IMO. "I know twins" implies that you know a pair of twins, that is, twins who are related to each other; in order to clarify that you mean three people who each happen to be a twin you need to say "I know three twins" or, even more correctly, "I know three people who are twins". Therefore, the word 'pair' in "I know a pair of twins" IS redundant, as "I know (some) twins" implies twins related to each other (your usage of 'pair' in this instance), and if you meant two people who are twins but not related to each other you'd need to say "I know two twins" instead. [EmmaH]

[edit] Just LOADS not redundant

"old pioneer" WTF "Smith is a pioneer in his field" or indeed literally, in the wilderness somewhere. He need not be old.

"young foal" - same thing as "young lad" - seperates newborn from adolescent.

"mix together"- "they went off to mix the paint and the dip" vs ""they went off to mix together the paint and the dip"

And that's without looking too hard! A Geek Tragedy 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to all four of your recent comments here, please read the introduction to the article, and the "Introduction" section in Talk. You appaer to be missing the point, in a way that has already been addressed with others at great length here. The short version: Just because some variant of a phrase on this list can be used in a non-redundant way doesn't mean that their use as illustrated here is not redundant, and the article is very careful not to claim that these phrases are always and invariably redundant. You are not the first to miss this subtlety, so this probably indicates that the introductory section of the article needs work, and that more entries need usage notes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointlessness

Seriously, what's the point of this list? What's the encyclopaedic value? Why is it incorrect to say "hot air moves upward"? Must we say "the car was moving back" or "the train moved for" as well? Could this list ever be complete? Are there any true boundaries? There are plenty of good reasons for employing these "redundant" expressions. For example, saying "blend together" makes clear that the verb is being used intransitively. "Bouquet of flowers" is just pointless nitpicking. "Brief moment" is more descriptive than "moment". "Cancel out" is not the same as "cancel" ("my complaint cancelled out your reservation" is not the same as "my complaint cancelled your reservation"). "Comfortable" != "comfortable with" ("I'm comfortable sitting on the couch" != "I'm comfortable with sitting on the couch"). "Monopoly" != "Complete monopoly" (95% market share is an incomplete monopoly). "Currently" carries the idea of the state being temporary and tenuous. "Definition decision" != "Decision". "Dive down" != "dive" (adding down makes the downward movement dominant over a possible down-and-across movement like diving for a plate in baseball). "Downward" etc are much clearer than without the "ward" (compare "the plane went down" vs "the plane went downwards", it also clarifies transitivity). Some are just mindless: since when is "razzle" in "razzle-dazzle" "redundant"? "Right now" isn't even close to being redundant.

Is this list intended as just a collection for people's pet peeves about poor English, or is it supposed to serve some encyclopaedic purpose? Maybe Wikipedia is not the best place for this list. Stevage 11:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stevage.. we have tried to get it deleted. We will try again. I am reluctant to start proceedings until I am sure of success though. Do you know of zillions of people who will vote for delete? Have a look at Talk:List of redundant expressions#Deleting this page (round 3) and the failed deletion attempt. Zargulon 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Good luck. The article is improving pretty rapidly. The fact that you feel you have to campaign for voters... well, I'm just not going to comment further on that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Apologies if that came across as unnecessarily sarcastic. I thought we ended on a good note in "Deleting this page (round 3)" above, and a lot of work has been done to improve the article by leaps and bounds since then. And it's still only been a few months since AfD failed, when the article was in far worse shape. So I find it strange to see what seems to be sort of a "campaign" brewing again to AfD the page. I know several months ago I said I didn't care if this page survived or not. That is no longer the case. Myself and several others have put in too much work on it to see it nuked just because it's someone's pet peeve. I'll actively defend it if AfD time comes around again (remember, it survived AfD last time, when it sucked, without me even being involved - I was on a week+ hiatus from Wikipedia and did not vote, defend the article, or encourage anyone else to do so. It has more defenders now. So "good luck" getting it AfD'd. You'll need it, I think. PPS: I still lean toward something in the gist of your position however. I think ALL such lists of this sort need to be in a new "Wikilists:" namespace/project, with its own criteria. I might even start it myself. After that's established, there can be a mass AfD of all such lists that concludes with having them moved to WikiLists, and replaced with redirects or whatever here. Would be a slow process without that last, as thousands of articles would have to be edited to manually change the wikilinks to these articles. And finally someone could add a new line to WP:NOT. Heh. Anyway, I think that solution would both preserve the content, which even most of the AfD "Delete" voters said was interesting, and preserve WP editors' ability to wikilink to it, without ever engendering any delete-or-not disputes (unless the list in question didn't pass the new namespace's guidelines either, of course). This does not constitute an admission/agreement on my part that this list fails any WP guidelines; I'm simply saying that lists of this sort seem to trigger beliefs that they do and thus lead to unnecessary AfD activity and lots of chatter on Talk pages like this and so forth; time wasted that would have been better spent on article writing. My solution, in essence, is to get rid of the controversy completely rather than remain on one side of it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi SMC, no offense taken. But I am still interested to know how you intend to source authoritably that these expressions are redundant, as opposed to just sourcing notable usage. Or are you happy to have the "factual accuracy" tag become a permanent feature of the article? Zargulon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not happy with that marker there (though I added an HTML comment below it to the effect that it shouldn't be randomly removed; its eventual removal should be a point of discussion here on the talk page - a discussion we are just about due for.) I think it will eventually be sufficient to identify the "canonical" reason why each listed redundancy can be considered redundant, and authoritatively cite those rationales, then link each example to one of those cites. Any that cannot be linked to a categoric explanation would be removed. By way of comparison, one could easily put together a "List of fallacious arguments used in U.S. Congressional debates in 2006", and run it the same way - provide the quote, source the quote, provide references for specific, named fallacies like Fallacy Ad-hominem, Fallacy Ad-hominem tu Coq, etc. - the rationale for labelling a particular example "fallacious" - then simply link each example to one of those specific ref. citations (or more than one if fallacious in more than one way). At that point, the only reasonable dispute would be whether a *specific example* actually qualified as the type of fallacy it was labelled as, and that would be a subject for Talk page quibbles and minor edits, rather than an AfD or labelling the entire article disputed. I think that could work here too, whenever I or someone else gets around to citing a large pile of grammar, logic & linguistic books on the topic of semantic redundancies, to build the needed list of "identified" redundancy types.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why the list shouldn't be here. However, many items don't belong in the list, and seem to result from a rather precious approach to what constitutes good English or logical expression. Some are stylistic preferences – possibly even dialectal, such as the use of of after all or alongside. I can see no reason for rejecting actual experience that doesn't equally imply that the word actual should be jettisoned from the language. There is nothing wrong with absolutely sure—I am sure that Arthur existed, surer that Alfred the Great existed, absolutely sure that I exist. I may work through the list some time and divide it into real and imagined redundancies. Later still I may purge the second list.

Some of the so-called redundancies depend on context. In the example given for ask a question, the word ask by itself does the job. But the phrase isn't always redundant. In the sentence, Somebody asked a question, there is no redundancy; the sentence, Somebody asked is incomplete.

The point may be actually worth making that words that express the feelings or attitude of a speaker or writer over (and above) a bald statement of the facts do not per se constitute a redundancy. Copey 2 16:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that many depend on context or can be used in non-redundant ways is noted both in general in the article, and in many places at specific entries. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would venture a guess that a good portion of the article is "original research" and POV. Wahkeenah 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Such as? The list has already been greatly purged of examples that were obviously constructed by whoever added them, and work is slowly being done to add in ref. citations to the expressions that remain, in actual usage. None of the ones that remain strike me as particularly suspicious, though I can understand that some of the might to speakers of UK or Jamaican English where the examples in qusetion might be North Eastern or West-Coast US English, etc. The article already survived a largely WP:OR-based AfD, and is much better now than it was then. I'd suggest that it is worth keeping around and further improving. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The article as a whole seems to fit all the requirements for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is reference material. It ages well. Students and others sincerely want to know for worthy purposes. Etc. The only reason it might not be in some would be they wanted to make the volumes fit on 2 metres of shelf and so they had to leave out some good information. Remember, they are alleged or sometimes redundancies. It's up to the reader to decide how to use the information. The reader wants to know the examples, even if not generally agreed on. Korky Day 05:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency histogram

is "frequency histogram" too technical to be included? —Pengo 08:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if you you link it to Histogram. Society of Redundancy Society. Wahkeenah 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And/or explain it a bit. Without looking at the histogram article, I'm not certain I would detect the redundancy myself, and I'm pretty geeky.  :-) I.e., are all histograms by definition measuring frequency, or can they be used to similarly graph something else? (I mean this as more of a rhetorical question, indicating the need for the entry to pre-answer the obvious question.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The phrase "God damn [it]"

An editor, 68.105.69.167 (talk · contribs), wants to add this phrase as an example into the list, but has met opposition. Thus, I am opening a Support/Oppose poll on the topic to gauge consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's nonsense. The phrase is not redundant, under any definition. Even among Christian believers, for whom "damn" may have a special meaning, the phrase is not redundant because simply saying "God" without "damn" doesn't indicate a request for God to do anything, while simply saying "damn" by itself doesn't either, since if not addressed to God as a request, it's simply an utterance indicating consternation, like "shit" or "darn". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The IP address' viewpoint apparently is that the only definition of "damn" is that of the religious concept of eternal punishment by a monotheistic God. That notion is patently false. It's a Latin word adopted by Christianity and is often used in a figurative sense as a doublet of "condemn", whose root word is the same. Thus, specifying Who is doing the damning is necessary to make the phrase specific. Wahkeenah 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete whole article Zargulon 11:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Heh. Was wondering when we'd hear from you on that theme again. >:-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Damn it to Hell" anybody? (As oppossed to damning to an ice-cream parlour, perhaps.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:42 2 March 2007 (GMT).
  • Oppose. To say the word "it" in the phrase is redundant and should be deleted is surely wrong. You are asking God to damn something, so you have specify what--or else use a pronoun (it, him, them, etc.) in place of something specific. It would be like sitting at the dinner table and saying, "Alice, please pass me the." The what??? I suspect of course that some religious types would want to censor this, no matter what logic we supplied. I'm not among them. It should be wherever it fits in Wikipedia. But I honestly can't think of the slightest argument for including it HERE, but my mind is open. Korky Day 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General facts

  • general facts: Mr. President, the situation report contains the general facts as the agency knows them.

-As opposed to, perhaps, the deployment and numbers of every enemy division. Seems dundent to me. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42 2 March 2007 (GMT).

Good point. But I think that the "usual" usage, as illustrated, is in fact redundant, and usually consists of logorrheia for weaseling purposes. Maybe a usage note could distinguish the uses? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAS syndrome examples

[The instructional comments in the article say: 'Please do NOT add willy-nilly examples below. This is not the RAS syndrome article! The examples given here are meant to be short, common/real, differentiated AND illustrative. Adding "NIC card" or "SAM missile" adds nothing to this article! Basically, if you add an example it should be better than an existing one, and that less interesting one should be REMOVED. Do not make this example list longer without good reason.']

But that is false! At RAS are only 3 examples!! Where is the long list that readers need? I don't see why it shouldn't be here, as other redundancies are above. --Korky Day

I don't know what you mean by "false" in this context. If someone has edited the RAS article to be shorter, that isn't this article's fault. Your concern is with the RAS article, not this one. The RAS section in this article is simply an afterthought that gives a few illustrative examples. If every conceivable RAS were added to this list the article would double in size and just have to be split anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I fixed this article so it doesn't suggest looking at RAS syndrome for more examples (mostly because it is not a list article). superapathyman 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keen. If someone wants a list of RASs, they should go start such a list. (Attn:Korky Day.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-inserting my changes

Thanks, SMcCandlish, for your efforts. I disagree with many of your changes to my changes. I don't have time right now to discuss them. I did, however, under "High noon", fix your "12 PM", which is an innumeracy and is contradicted by the Wikipedia style guide. Korky Day 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make it personal. I've reverted that change and though I think the edit summary covers it, since there's a talk page topic I think it's a good idea to use it! WP:LAWYER is important (and while some of things covered in that essay, or maybe guideline, I forget, are evidentiary of bad faith editing, not all of them are, and I want to make it clear that I'm not referring to it out of any assumption of bad faith on your part, just overly-literal interpretation of WP:MOS.) In short: Wikipedia guidelines should never be interpreted so narrowly or with such zeal that the end result is bad encyclopedia text (this is the principal real meaning of the oft-misinterpreted WP:IAR, by the way.)
Your use of the word "innumeracy" makes no sense — at all — in this context.
The problem with your "12 PM" to "noon according to the local time" edit is that it is a self-referential definition, and thus will basically be meaningless nonsense to many if not most readers. The entire point of the explanatory note for that entry is to explicate the dual meaning of "noon" and this can't be done by simply referring back to the word "noon". <fzzt spark pop>Does not compute! DOES NOT COMPUTE! <bang!> The two meanings have to be distinguished, and it is especially important to remember that many readers of Wikipedia are non-native English speakers, children, simply poorly educated, or non-geniuses. While I and you know what you meant, many readers would not. But that's a side point really. The recursive definition is the real problem. If you look up "cat" (the animal) in a dictionary, you will emphatically not find an entry reading something like: "1: A small species of cat often kept as a house pet; 2: A blanket term for all cat species, including the great cats." Defining "noon" in terms of "noon" is next to meaningless. Furthermore, nothing at all about WP:MOS, anywhere, precludes using different styles or formatting for intentional disambiguation purposes or in other context-specific ways, especially when giving examples or referring to terms being defined (the MoS addresses general article prose and very little else); in fact, doing so is encouraged again and again throughout all of MoS's sectional pages where doing so may be warranted for just such purposes. The edit you've been insisting upon is akin (in reductio ad absurdum) to going to the article on the month of February and changing an example that read "some prefer the formats 'February 12', 'February 12th' or '12th of February' over '12 February'", and changing it to read "some prefer the formats '12 February', '12 February' or '12 February' over '12 February'", just because this is how MoS says dates should be formatted.
As for the various other disagreements you allude to, again don't take it personally or think there is some fight you have to show up for. (And did you notice that a bunch of your edits were kept, by me and everyone else watching the article? No one is attacking you.) Please note that this article has been remarkably stable, for many months after an intensive period of "massively multi-editor" activity. There are good reasons for that. Coming in with edit after edit, and then getting insistent about them, even when given reasons against them (especially when you, notably, have not given reasons for them) seems a little brash (which is not always the same thing as bold). For an article this stable, and which at its level of stability is strongly resistant to edits that are not simply adding sources or fixing "ther" for "there" typographical errors, proposing changes on the talk page and seeking consensus with regard to them is strongly indicated.
PS: If you want "12 PM" to read "12pm" or "12 P.M." or whatever, per what MoS says (I honestly don't remember on that particular point and don't care enough to find out), then have at it. Given that I actually edit the MoS with a fair amount of self-assurance, that parenthetical is probably pretty ironic or at least humorous. PS: Please do see that last link; I think you may find it useful or at least amusing.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(This I wrote before reading the above comments:)
In the American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition) the usage note in the entry for ante meridiem says: Strictly speaking, 12 A.M. denotes midnight, and 12 P.M. denotes noon, but there is sufficient confusion over these uses to make it advisable to use 12 noon and 12 midnight where clarity is required. A similar usage note can be found at <http://www.answers.com/topic/a-m>.
My point is that clarity is always desirable, if not always required. So why not eschew the innumeracies, regardless of how popular they become? Korky Day 07:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are innumeracies (faults in numbering or in mathematics generally). Saying that noon is after noon is bad arithmetic. Your other points about noon I think are answered with my latest edit. As for your other (non-noon) points, no offence taken. We'll have fun with them later. Just because an article lies fallow for a while doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved. Korky Day 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Clarity is indeed needed, and defining "noon" in terms of "noon" is the opposite of that. I have no idea at all what you are talking about with "saying that noon is after noon"; no one has said that here. Will think about your change and see if it resolves the concerns. Agreed of course that articles can be improved even after they've been stable for some time (fallow is the wrong word here; many editors watchlist this article and it has had fairly large number of active editors in its history.) Still disagree with your use of innumeracy and resent the implication, but I'll drop the matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The new version seems okay to me. I think the verbiage is unnecessary, but I don't see that it does any harm. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: "This I wrote before reading the above comments" — I'll have to take it then that this is a moot argument. Just in case it actually needs addressing: The A.M./P.M. confusion cited in the AHD is of zero relevance here because the entry already states that we are talking about noon. The noon confusion that is the entire point of the example is not in any way addressed by what AHD has to say on the issue. The two contexts are not only different, they are diametric opposites of each other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe y'all should settle this with a shootout at High Noon. 12 P.M. is conventionally used for mid-day and 12 A.M. for midnight, even though both are technically incorrect. I'm also not convinced the expression "High Noon" is redundant, but that's another story. Wahkeenah 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<bang!> I'm not sure what is non-redundant about "high noon" that you're seeing, but the entire note we've been arguing about is questionable to me; it looks like borderline WP:OR. I've never in my entire life heard someone refer to meridian-based "natural" noon as high noon in distinction to "official" noon according to local time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more of an "intensifier", as in the example below, "high time". "High noon" by itself would mean the time of day when the sun is at its highest in the sky. And I would suspect that the phrase pre-dates the common availability of timepieces. I also don't think the users of that phrase would have overanalyzed it like we seem to be doing. :) Wahkeenah 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And just to confuse matters further, the word "noon" derives from the Latin for "nine", i.e. the "ninth hour", whatever that means in modern terms. Wahkeenah 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I buy it. I don't see what there is to intensify. Noon (either way you want to define it) is noon. There is no "very, very noon" or "slightly noon" Either noon or not (though of course it can be "nearly noon" or "just past noon" as it can with anything else.) Not sure what you mean by "high noon by itself"; as opposed to combined with what? Anyway, it doesn't seem to serve any disambiguating function either. There is no "low noon" or "somewhat high-ish noon". Nor is there a "high 1 o'clock" or "high midnight". The fact that it's not analyzed by speakers is pretty much why it exists at all, like probably everything else on the list. If as I suspect it means "exactly noon as opposed to 'round about noon", then in Modern English it generally would be redundant, because we no longer tell time by looking at the sky, unless we are weird, or extremist luddites, or are stranded in the wilderness with a broken watch. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The missing piece here would seem to be where the expression "High Noon" comes from, assuming that can even be determined. Meanwhile, the article about Noon has some interesting stuff on the subject... including the fact that "mid-day" is the preferred term in many countries, except that "mid-day" was and is taken to mean "around noon", at least in English. What you're saying is that "noon", by itself, is logically the same thing as "high noon", forgetting the technicalities of the sun's position vs. the actual local time. In short, you might be right that it's redundant. But I'd like to know more about the term's origin. It's possible it was a literary invention rather than springing from the populace. Wahkeenah 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There was also a film and a TV series called Twelve o'Clock High, which is about daytime bombing missions in WWII, although that might just be a play on words. Wahkeenah 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Almost certainly a play on words, as pilots identify other aircraft position with a clock metaphor. However, that does not at all militate (no pun intended) against the idea that "twelve o'clock high" and "high noon" are/were both valid terms in use at the same time, and doesn't say much about which came first. Could even be that twelve o'clock high did, since the "high" could refer to the upward pointing arrow of the clock hand. Bears some looking into. NB: This almost makes me think it might be both useful and fun to include a list of phrases thought to be redundant which are not, with meticulously researched and sourced info. Necessarily it would start out small. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This article [11] talks about the concept of noon somewhat, about how it wasn't too long ago that people used the sun instead of clocks. It occurs to me that the issue is how the word "noon" is used. If "noon" is taken to mean precisely 12:00, then "high noon" seems redundant. If "noon" is taken to be more like "noon-ish" or "mid-day", then "high noon" adds precision. Wahkeenah 22:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, though see above - if that were the case it would still be redundant today and would need a clarifying note that in former times it wasn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! A good point. And yet another article: "Things that were once unique and are now redundant." Wahkeenah 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, SMcCandlish, Wahkeenah, and others! You, SMcCandlish, say (several paragraphs above) that you don't see yet that "Saying that noon is after noon is bad arithmetic." Here's why it is innumerate: "12 P.M." means in Latin "the end point of the 12th hour, (which is in the) afternoon". Mathematically, then, since it is alleged to be AFTER noon, some number of minutes, seconds, and/or milliseconds, etc. must have elapsed after noon in order to equal the time referred to. But if you add any minutes or seconds, etc. to noon, then it is no longer noon. It's wrong addition, an instance of innumeracy.

As to your other main point, whether we are discussing sun time or clock time is irrelevant, since all this reasoning applies equally, whichever definition of noon you are using. Simply stay in one of those 2 systems or the other; don't try to cross-pollinate, as you were doing.

In conclusion, then, how should we fix the article? We can say that 12 P.M. is used by some people for noon, although it doesn't actually mean noon. It is used by some authorities, on the contrary, to mean midnight. Luckily, replacing the expressions 12 P.M. and 12 A.M. with noon and midnight, etc., (whenever possible) would easily solve almost all the problems, as our WP Manual of Style (MoS) and other style books recommend. That would solve the immediate problem.

For the long-range, we should consider using the 24-hour clock, whenever possible. Korky Day 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood; of course saying that noon is after noon wouldn't make sense; what I was saying is that I don't believe anyone is saying that, much less that any version of the text was. But since everyone seems satisfied with the current text, it's probably a moot point. I am understanding what you mean about post meridian's Latin origin, but the bare fact is the term is no longer used that way. "12 p.m." in modern English (however one wishes to capitalize or punctuate it). means "noon". I understand the argument (which someone else raised too) that this is technically incorrect, but it's not my job as a Wikipedia editor to change trends in the English language.  :-)
I'm not sure what you mean by "solve the immediate problem"; I thought we'd both agreed that your "noon by local time" edit satisfied both sides, and worked well enough in the article text that it would stay. Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right that this article is good now. I was (without telling you) thinking of various Wikipedia articles on noon, midnight, 12 P.M. (sic), etc. If the phrase "2+2=5" became popular, should Wikipedia just accept it as common, modern, correct English? Korky Day 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "High time"

I propose deleting this entry:

  • high time: It's high time I got some sleep.

This isn't really a redundancy, but the use of an intensifier; the meaning is basically "it's way past time I got some sleep". There are some other entries in here like this than need hunting down as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should instead add a "citation needed" tag and follow with an alternative view, as elsewhere in the list. To delete it leads the reader to think that we should include it, but that we just forgot. Korky Day 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Fact}} is generally only used when the fact in question is noncontroversial and simply unsourced. In this case the "fact" is controversial (by definition; it has been controverted). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

I've filled in some items in the to-do list up at the top of the talk page. I think at this point that the vast majority of editing on this article should focus on those tasks instead of on adding new entries or additional commentary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve English by getting people to say "task list" instead of "to-do list". Korky Day 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If you fix that one, maybe you could work on the Middle East situation for awhile. Actually, "task" sounds like something that someone else told you to do, something boring; whereas "to-do" sounds like something you might look forward to with enthusiasm, or that at least has a heightened level of excitement, as per the expression "what a to-do!" Wahkeenah 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The fact that Korky is "trying to improve English" explains a lot of his contentious edits, actually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These ones / those ones

Reverted with 'Not necessarily redundant. Plural form of "this one" and "that one"'. But that begs the question: Aren't the singular versions also redundant? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SMcCandlish. Korky here in Canada. I feel like I am always on the defensive with you. My mother (a teacher), all my teachers (as far as I remember), and all the reference books (as far as I remember), agree with me. The plural of "this one" is "these", never "these ones". The singular of "these" is "this one", not "this" or "one"!!!! Why do I have go search for a reference instead of you? (Of course, you might equally argue that the burden of proof is on me.) Korky Day 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a reference to back me up (from a source someone else added): http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/these_ones.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korky Day (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, I guess I forgot the 4 tildes. Korky Day 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the one that reverted it. I thought it was a good addition (once the singular/plural thing is dealt with) so I brought it to the talk page for discussion, and noted the reverter's edit summary. As for references being needed that's just how WP works; see WP:ATT. This article is already under periodic attack because it doesn't cite sources enough, so adding more unsourced material just endangers it further; I agree with the revert on that basis, but would like to see some form of the entry restored, with a cited quote using it, and hopefully (I think this will ultimately be necessary) some external non-blog or otherwise non-junk source using it as an example of redundancy. PS: Yes, the burden of proof is very much on the editor adding material. That's pretty much a universal in Wikipedia. A loud minority of editors even believe in deleting all unsourced material on sight, and this view is even a majority one when it comes to biographies of living people.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You are a wealth of information to the relative newcomer, so thanks! (I started 2006 4.) I might agree about the living people but I wish editors wouldn't question the obvious so often. Sometimes it's like finding a "source" to prove that the emperor had no clothes. All the authorities agreed his raiment was splendid. I think that the nay-sayers should generally be happy with adding the tag "citation needed". Since I now have a source (added by someone before me), I presume you'll back me up, eh? Korky Day 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks right to me, though I would go with the singular as the entry, and probably combine them. This/that are not alphabetically very far apart, so I'm skeptical about two entries being needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Though close, they are not adjacent, and so will be missed by readers looking for the "wrong" one. We don't have to worry about saving paper, as the printed encyclopedias do. Korky Day 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Python quote: Department of Redundancy Department

Copied from history: 23:56, 18 March 2007 SMcCandlish (Talk | contribs) m (Rm. addition - does not suit list (which is of "common phrases" not constructed silliness, however emminent). Should be in Redundancy (language)#In popular culture instead. And sourced.)

Dear SMcCandlish, I looked where you said, " Redundancy (language)#In popular culture ", but found no list there whatsoever, so now where do you really want me to put it, into the rubbish? I thought it was on a par with "deja vu all over again", just below, by Yogi Berra. I looked through 10 pages of Google results for the Pythonism, but couldn't find an excellent source, just middling ones. I think emminently appropriate silliness is fine for here. If you were a student looking through an encyclopedia to write a paper on redundancy, wouldn't you like to be told about the Python bit? I certainly would!! So it seems encyclopedic to me, in spite of being humorous. There's no rule against humour in Wikipedia, is there? Such a rule would, itself, be silly. Are you laughing yet? Korky Day 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clearer, I meant it should be in the general prose of that article (probably in a standard "In popular culture" section, which may or may not exist at that article), rather than in this list or any other list. That is, it's a significant usage of the concept, that many, many readers will recognize and identify with, so some background on it would probably be a good addition to the main article, instead of to this list, which is about common redundancies in everyday speech. Oh, and I mean "eminent" in my edit summary. Fixxing htat typoe wood mayke a imediate immprovement I thinck. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
To quote from the introductory paragraph, "The expressions are not necessarily noteworthy in any way other than their alleged redundancy." In other words, they need NOT be "common redundancies in everyday speech", as you allege. You made up that latter phrase. It's not in the article. On that point your argument hinges. And you ignored my Yogi Berra point. So unless you or anyone can come up with a better argument, I'm going to have to replace it into the list--as soon as I find a good reference for it. Korky Day 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the rest of the article. The list makes it very clear that it is a list of common attestable redundancies. This doesn't qualify. Instead of fighting for fighting's sake I suggest actually reading what is being written to you, namely that this would be valuable (if sourced) addition to the main article on this topic, instead of to this sub-article where it is grossly out-of-place. PS: I don't recall your Berra point. What was it? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Did see your Berra point, after all, but I don't see how it applies here. Also not sure either of us consider this an open topic any longer. I'm sorry that you can't find a good source for the Python quote, but that militates against adding the material (until reliably sourceable) to any article, not just this one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I first heard that expression or variants over 30 years ago, and I still use it. But it's not a common expression, it's a joke that makes fun of itself, i.e. anyone who uses it is just saying it to be funny. It doesn't qualify for this list. It's kind of like this Groucho Marx quote from Horse Feathers where he first addresses Huxley College for the first time: "Members of the faculty; faculty members; students of Huxley; and Huxley students. I guess that covers everything!" Wahkeenah 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You still use it, you say. So do millions of others, which makes it common. No rule about common expressions not being allowed to be jokes, is there? The Marx quote is also funny, but not a redundant expression. The Berra quote (deja vu) is both. Korky Day 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any evidence that "millions of others" use it, as I've never heard anyone say it except me and whoever told me that joke 30 years ago. I don't know what the "rule" is in this article, but the sense of it that I get is that it's about non-intentional redundancies... like Yogi's. However, there could be a separate section called "redundancies for humorous effect"... like the subject of this section, and like Groucho's joke... and like my comment "where he first addresses Huxley College for the first time", which was either too subtle or two obvious to evoke a response. However, my joke wouldn't qualify, as it's "OR". :) Wahkeenah 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that your "first" joke went over my head is more evidence for the need of this article. People want to know what's been going over their heads. I've heard lots of people say the Python quote, which is hardly surprising, given the popularity of Monty. And when I bring it up, many respond that they know the quote. I disagree with your whole "sense of it" argument. We're not sure Berra's redundancy was unintentional. Let's see if you adding your "sense of it" to the article introduction survives. I think the humorous and non-humorous ones should be left interspersed. You can label the humour if you like. Korky Day 03:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That would work. Humorous redundancies could be included if followed by "(used deliberately, as a joke)" or some such. I know enough about Yogi to know that he wasn't being deliberately redundant. That's assuming he actually even said it. I think he did, but don't forget another famous Yogiism: "I never said half the things I said." That's probably more of a paradox than a redundancy. Wahkeenah 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As of

Calling "as of" a redundancy is really a stretch. I agree "as of yet" could be argued to be redundant for "as yet", which is a common expression, although I suspect "as yet" is actually the incorrect usage. But "as now" instead of "as of now" doesn't sound right, nor would "as noon tomorrow". A sentence like that doesn't make sense. I would suspect "as now" is a Britishism, and I also suspect it's incorrect usage. Wahkeenah 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I doubt that any WP:RS could be found for "as of yet" being redundant so I think it should be removed as WP:OR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It be done, gone, and outta here, as of now. :) Actually, there were two "as of" items, except the other was used incidentally in the phrase "as of 12 [o'clock] noon", which is also shaky, but I've left it in for the moment. Wahkeenah 00:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I take it back. It's the 12 [o'clock] that's redundant, if you're already specifying noon (I don't know anyone who says 12 midnight, but anything's possible). I'm not too alert after a long day. That one qualifies, although it's kind of lame. Wahkeenah 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people (probably mostly or entirely American) say "12 midnight" and "12 noon". It's very common idiom over here in Yankeeland. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Blimey! Wahkeenah 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I ain't shittin' ya, dude.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoning the article

Actually, I'm going to abandon this article. The way what used to be WP:OR is evolving at WP:ATT, I believe that this article will fall under the definition of "original research" no matter what is done with it, so I'm not going to invest any more time in it at all. Unwatch! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know all that Wikipedia jargon. Korky Day 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Read the links. Wahkeenah 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I did and still don't get it. How is original research evolving at attribution? But don't bother if you don't want to, since he's left this article, anyway. Korky Day 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't quite get it either, but I think he's saying that too much original research in wikipedia is being allowed in. Whatever. Wahkeenah 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just stopped in for followup. What I'm saying is that the interpretation of WP:OR (or WP:NOR if you prefer) and its almost-but-not-quite the same implementation at WP:ATT is becoming increasingly stringent, to the point that I don't think an article on this topic is plausible under those interpretations. I'll stick with the Redundancy (language) article, which I expect will eventually be attacked even for giving examples that aren't basically plagiarized ("sourced") from a third party. I think that article's worth defending, but this one isn't (not because it isn't "worthy", I just think it will ultimately be a lost cause. I don't think that's just, I simply think that's how it will go, so I'm going to spend my editing time where I think the time is more likely to produce something with permanent viability.) I've done a lot to try to clean this article up, but my estimation of the odds has simply worsened, that's all. I remain quite fond of the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why revert my correxion of [...] to remove those wrong brackets?

Why twice revert my correxion of [...] to remove those wrong brackets? I'm told they serve some purpose, but no one has said what purpose. I've never seen ellipsis with brackets anywhere else. Korky Day 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Read edit summaries, please. The brackets-and-elipsis indicate that something optionally can go there, or be entirely absent. Without the brackets it means that one of a number of somethings must go there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
In British usage, a bracketed ellipsis in quoted material indicates that something has been removed from the quote to make it shorter (and thus more to the point), but that the essential meaning has not been changed. E.g. "Never, in all my experience, has anything even remotely like this happened" → "Never [...] has anything [...] like this happened"; the removed sections having added colour but not meaning. -- 217.171.129.69 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koala Bear?

how is koala bear redundent?Shimonnyman 06:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not, its a contradiction; koala (like "panda bears"[sic]) are not bears at all. I think someone saw "tuna fish" and went hog-wild without thinking it through, or may simply not have known that koalas are marsupials, not ursines. Someone should probably revert its addition as nonsense. Saying "koala bear" is about like saying "koala fish" or "tuna bear".  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats what i thought heh71.131.33.187 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC) why arent i staying logged on *growly face*Shimonnyman 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Koala Bear is not a redundancy, it's a misnomer, like Sea Horse or Sea Elephant. Wahkeenah 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Extra bonus"

It seems that the term extra bonus saves people from saying, "bonus bonus."

For example, if someone receives a first bonus and then they get another bonus, they have now acquired a extra…bonus. It's a bonus that is in addition to the first bonus. One that is "on top" of the initial bonus.

What I'm trying to say here is that the phrase extra bonus is only redundant if the person received just one bonus. Otherwise, its a bonus…bonus.

Preston47 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bring your dog around, I'll give him a bonus too." -- Groucho Marx. OK, the word "bonus" presumably means something "good". However, I think the term "extra bonus" is normally used in connection with more than one bonus, as you indicated. So the phrase is only redundant if used where there was only one. Feel free to add that point to the article. :) Wahkeenah 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Razzle-Dazzle"

I suspect this one; I think it's an example of intensifier use, not of redundancy as such. 193.122.47.170 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It is definitely not redundancy. Wahkeenah 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "High noon"

This to my mind is another suspect one; as the example itself points out, the use of timezones (and of daylight saving) has made "noon" ambiguous, and "high noon" (aka "sundial noon") unambiguously refers to the moment the sun crosses the meridian, as opposed to "clock noon" (or "zonal noon") which is always 12:00 but can be several minutes different from high noon due to the Equation of Time and to longitude, plus another hour in summer due to DST. 193.122.47.170 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You're right. I caught myself using that expression just the other day, and specifically in context of the sun being straight overhead (never mind that it was around 1:00 DST). Wahkeenah 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plural of 'focus'

This is pretty pedantic, even for this page, but even so... the comment for 'main focus' previously read: "Something can only have one focus; if it seems to have two or more it may have multiple subjects, but cannot have multiple focuses, by definition." I corrected the plural to 'foci', which I'm sure is the correct word. I just thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wants to argue that 'focuses' is a legitimate plural. Terraxos 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to say that something can only have one focus. Ellipses, for example, have two foci/focuses/focusses. Never mind, hopefully this article will soon be deleted. Zargulon 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It's also (at least technically) incorrect to use "hopefully" to mean "with any luck". :-) -- 217.171.129.69 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And your point is ... :-) Zargulon (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Some words have more than one plural, even in the same dialect of English; for example, the plural of "penny" can be "pennies" or "pence". A well-known example is "virus"; some people pluralise this as "viri", but others point out that since the Romans didn't bother to create an irregular Latin plural for this word (in Latin it's singular-only), there's no reason why we should do so for them, and such people prefer "viruses". A few people even use "virii", but that's plainly wrong because the singular isn't "virius".
An extreme example is "octopus", which has three plurals that I know of, all AFAIK regarded as correct: octopuses, octopi and octopodes. -- 217.171.129.71 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All versus All of

As in "All of the children go to school". In British English we say "All of". Maybe in American English you say "All", but in British English we say "All of", and "All" without the "of" sounds wrong to native British ears. (We also say "some of", "many of", etc).

[edit] this page links to a lyrics site

which violates copyright and is probably not a clever idea. sdont ban me this time plz

Where, exactly, is this link? Just making allegations about problems on a very long page, without telling us where they occur so that they can be dealt with, is hardly constructive. And you forgot to sign your post. -- 217.171.129.69 (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors at the end of the page

I challenge the following: The winter/winter season/wintertime: Surely these are reduplication for emphasis, not redundancies.

The same goes for very, very; I've noticed that the equivalent "far, far" isn't listed, and rightly not.

Also, the entire "redundant acronyms" (some of which aren't acronyms as such, but that's not my present point) and "redundant phrases" sections are themselves redundant, since there are already Wikipedia articles for those subjects. One of the supposedly "redundant phrases" (RAID array) isn't necessarily redundant, since there can be more than one RAID in a single server, and all RAIDs taken together is then non-redundantly a "RAID array", that is, an array of RAIDs. -- 217.171.129.69 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beef Bolognese sauce

I just made myself some pasta served with what the maker called "beef bolognese sauce".

I suspect that this is redundant; I've never come across a bolognese sauce whose main component was anything but beef. A sauce with much the same ingredients but no meat is a napoletana. -- 217.171.129.73 (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)