User talk:Born2cycle/FAQ

"Conciseness is not just brevity"?

• "Conciseness is not just brevity"? No. "Conciseness is not brevity". Brevity is achieved by discarding or not using important information, concise is achieved by eliminating redundancy in word use. And no, Comprehensiveness is not a key component of conciseness. I think you meant "comprehensibility". Comprehensiveness is the state of being comprehensive, including everything, which can be done in a concise or wordy way, although it is often used in a kinder euphemistic way to say "too wordy". "Comprehensibility" is covered by "recognizability".

Concise could be considered as on a spectrum, where brief is at one end, and comprehensive is at the other. A concise title is much closer to brief than comprehensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, your issue is with dictionary editors. The literal dictionary definition of concise is giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.[1] That's why I said concision is not just brevity. Yes, I meant comprehensiveness, the state of being comprehensive, because that, again, is from the very definition of concise. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

В²C, yes, it is fair to say I have issues with dictionary editors. Some dictionaries are sloppy. The best, I think, is oed.com. However, it is subscriber only outside the UK. www.m-w.com is the best free dictionary in my opinion. Wiktionary is pretty good, but unreliable, like Wikipedia.

Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise

: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail

Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concise

Adjective
# brief, yet including all important information

Neither are wrong. "marked by brevity of expression" is not the same as "marked by brevity"

"brief, yet including ..." is not the same as "brief".

Brief is useful in the dictionary definition of concise precisely because it is etymological unconnected to concise. A dictionary can't use a different form of "concise" to define "concise". It should be understood, accordingly, that "brief" is not "concise", and to decipher the clues you have to look hard at the caveats. ", yet including" or "of expression". Unlike "brief", the meaning of concise cannot be understood without these caveats, these caveats are what makes "concise" a useful word distinct from "brief"

On comprehensive, you are erring by de-emphasizing a preceding clause.

Your source, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/concise

concise ...
ADJECTIVE
Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.

You use formatting to de-emphasize "Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words" and to emphasize "brief but comprehensive". That last clause, by following the preceding, is subservient to the preceding clause. But to be clear, I do have an issue with the editor of that dictionary entry. I disagree that a good definition of concise begins with "a lot of information", and I similarly disagree that "comprehensive" is a good word. I think that the editor is confusing the related but different "comprehensive" with "comprehensible". The first implied "complete", while the second means "able to be understood" (comprehended = understood).

English is a dog of a language, according to a source I have lost, but I agree.

Yes, I have an issue with dictionary editors, and a strong preference for quality dictionaries. I also think you have had an off-the-mark understanding of the word "concise", and I think you would do well to consult quality dictionaries over google search information. It is a bad idea to debate subtle ideas without agreeing on the language. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My point can made in terms of any definition you choose. Take m-w: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail.

Possibly, but my point is that you point in you FAQ is poorly made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In the context of a WP title, any descriptive information beyond what is necessary to identify the article's subject in a manner that is "marked by brevity of expression or statement" is "superfluous detail". A good current example is Dicklyon's nom at Talk:Soufrière_Hills_Volcano#Requested_move_10_January_2020. --В²C ☎ 02:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In which I also said that Soufrière Hills volcano would be a good title, but proposed the shorter or more concise one largely because B2C has objected already to that choice, and I just wanted to get the caps fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Volcano" is not "superfluous detail" about a volcano. It is a good example of the difference between concise and brief. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, “Soufrière Hills“ is comprehensive and complete in terms of identifying the name of the subject, which is all a title should do. Adding “volcano” here would be like having Mount St. Helens at Mount St. Helens volcano, or Krakatoa at Krakatoa volcano (or at Krakatoa caldera); the “volcano”, since it’s not part of these volcanos’ names, is equally superfluous in these cases. So the CONCISE title in each case does not include “volcano”. —-В²C ☎ 09:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)