Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 April 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 25

Poorly worded sentence can lead to confusion, and contradicting statements between pages

I'm not absolutely certain this is where my concern is to go, but I felt strongly enough about the following issues that I had to contact someone.

In the article on soldering the sentence "In brazing, the filler metal melts at a higher temperature, but the work piece metal does not melt." in the first paragraph is confusing to me. It may be useful to instead simply change this to something like: This is similar to brazing. My reasoning for this is that the description requires more depth. The explanation at that level is counter intuitive and left, at the very least, me confused.

A separate issue that is less likely to go here is that the page on Brazing starts with: "Brazing is a metal-joining process in which two or more metal items are joined together by melting and flowing a filler metal into the joint, the filler metal having a lower melting point than the adjoining metal." which is according to the soldering page an incorrect statement. "In brazing, the filler metal melts at a higher temperature"

I don't know how to solve these issues because I lack sufficient knowledge of the subject to correct the pages. I'm sorry this isn't totally applicable with Language but I figure at least the first concern was close enough. 46.5.0.174 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think what the two pages are trying to say is that in the soldiering article, it is saying "the filler metal melts at a higher temperature (than the metal used in soldering does)" while in the brazing article is saying "the filler metal having a lower melting point than the adjoining metal". At least, that's the only way I can read it which doesn't introduce a contradiction. I agree, however, that it is ambiguous, and since the last time I soldered anything was an electronics class I took 22 years ago, I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct. I will leave it up to someone knowledgeable to fix that issue; however something does need to be done with the text of the soldering article, which is confusing and ambiguous. --Jayron32 16:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The filler metal used in brazing melts at a higher temperature than the filler metal used in soldering. The brazing article goes on to say "Brazing differs from welding in that it does not involve melting the work pieces and from soldering in using higher temperatures for a similar process, while also requiring much more closely fitted parts than when soldering." Possible new wording for the sentence in question: "In brazing, the work piece metal also does not melt, but the filler metal is one that melts at a higher temperature than in soldering." I have reworded the sentence in the article. Jmar67 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In general with this sort of problem, you can edit the page to insert the appropriate template. For example if you think the wording is unclear, there is Template:clarify, which you use by inserting {{clarify}} and it produces this:. If you think two pages contradict each othere, there is Template:contradict-other, although this is a bit more complicated to use. There are a bunch of other templates for other similar problems. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Iirc, the fill material is at a lower temperature than the work material in both soldering and brazing. If the work material is supposed to partly melt, then it is called welding. The difference between soldering and brazing is that in brazing, the joint is supposed to have significant mechanical strength, so you'd use stronger and higher-temperature fill material than for soldering, and you'd do it with a flame torch, while you'd normally solder with a soldering iron. User:Andy Dingley would probably know best about this though. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

author as a verb

Hello, just noticed in the article on Stanko Fabris, a Croatian architect, the expression He authored dozens of notable public, residential and industrial buildings, is the verb authored correct here? I would expect to see designed, but thought I'd check here before changing it in case authored was OK... I have found The Verb 'Author' Means More Than "to Write" | Merriam-Webster but it doesn't really help, thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The text was lifted from a poor translation, likely using Google's translator. It would properly be "designed" instead of "authored". 68.115.219.139 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] Your dictionary link shows that this usage of “authored” is correct. But my perception is that this is such an uncommon usage that it leads readers to stop and try to figure out whether the sentence makes sense, which is contrary to the dictates of clear writing. So I would use “designed” to make the sentence flow smoothly. Loraof (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Author as a verb dates to the 1590s, though it had gone into disuse in that form until revived in the 1950s in American English; probably as part of the overall trend of verbing that has been happening this way with many words since about that time. I do concur, however, that when used in this context "designed" works better. Author as a verb usually refers to written text, and is marked in other uses. --Jayron32 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I remember there is a usage note in the American Heritage dictionary about this, where some commenters hate it and others think it is fine. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• "curated" seems to have become the one-size-fits-all verb of the decade. Film festivals, book launches, restaurant menus, anything you can think of are routinely described as "curated" these days. Why not designing buildings? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Article amended GrahamHardy (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Because "curate" means "to select from among a larger group, and then put that selection on display in a coherent and thoughtful manner." Film festivals are curated in the sense that someone had to choose which films to show and organize a festival around when and how to show them. Restaurant menus are curated because someone had to decide which dishes to offer, and then how to arrange those dishes on the menu. Curate has a very specific sort of "making" of something which is distinct from say, just writing something. Architects and engineers don't curate buildings. They design them. Someone could curate a collection of models or drawings, for example, that might make a display in a museum. But you don't curate an individual building. That's not cromulent. --Jayron32 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few thousand sites about the overuse of "curated". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A well-curated list of sites, I must say. --Jayron32 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Only today I saw a real-life example of a "curated" bedroom walk-in wardrobe. It's the late 2010s version of ripped jeans. Grotesque. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)