Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation

This is an essay on pitfalls in fixing repetition. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:ELEVAR WP:ELVAR WP:SECONDMENTION

This page in a nutshell: Don't overuse synonyms — they distract readers and remove clarity.

Elegant variation is the attempt to relieve repetition by replacing words with synonyms. For example:

• "Three homes were destroyed by a five-alarm fire yesterday. Neighbors reported the blaze about 4 pm. Two firefighters were injured battling the inferno. Officials called the conflagration suspicious."
• "Pope Paul waved from the balcony. As the Supreme Pontiff raised his hand, it became apparent that the Holy Father's glove had a large black stain, causing great embarrassment to the Bishop of Rome."

The English lexicographer H. W. Fowler coined "elegant variation" as an ironic criticism of this strategy.

Elegant variation distracts the reader, removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humour or muddled metaphors. It can confuse readers who are unaware, for example, that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. It fails to fix the real cause of repetitive prose, which is usually repeated information, not repeated words. In other words, it is a case of treating the symptom and not the cause.

By removing elegant variation and using plain English instead, prose becomes clearer and simpler overall.

Elegant variation is often used on Wikipedia in reference to individuals – for example, writing "the director" instead of "Spielberg".

Here's a passage from an old version of the article about

(he / him / she / her / they / them / it). When a pronoun isn't clear, just use the original word. In 99% of cases, the result is perfectly natural:

Bubbles (born April 30, 1983) is a common chimpanzee once kept as a pet by the American singer Michael Jackson, who bought him from a Texas research facility in the early 1980s. Bubbles frequently traveled with Jackson, whose attachment to him led to media mockery.

Elegant variation can reduce clarity and introduce confusion. For example, it can create the impression that the identity of the person or thing being referenced is unknown. It makes the reader work harder to keep track of who or what is being discussed, sometimes requiring them to reread text — or forcing them to guess.

Consider this excerpt from the article on the film Taxi Driver:

According to Scorsese, it was Brian De Palma who introduced him to Schrader. In Scorsese on Scorsese, the director talks about how much of the film arose from his feeling that movies are like dreams or drug-induced reveries.

Scorsese, De Palma, and Schrader are all directors – so which director does this refer to?

The following example of elegant variation, from the article about the band Pavement, makes the sentence difficult to comprehend:

Nastanovich also later recalled an awkward incident where it became apparent that Godrich did not know the name of the auxiliary percussionist.

Who was the auxiliary percussionist? It was Nastanovich himself – a fact mentioned several thousand words earlier in the article, so good luck if you missed that.

Using elegant variation to add information is not the clearest or most efficient way to provide that information. It sometimes feels like the writer is trying to smuggle it into the prose without the reader noticing.

For example, the following passage from the

article tells us that George Harrison was 15 when he met John Lennon:

Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney met Lennon that July, and joined as a rhythm guitarist shortly after. In February 1958, McCartney invited his friend George Harrison to watch the band. The fifteen-year-old auditioned for Lennon, impressing him with his playing.

This requires the reader to work out who "the fifteen-year-old" refers to — made more difficult here as the preceding sentence says McCartney is also fifteen.

You might argue that this is no great riddle, but it obfuscates information to no advantage. It's simpler and clearer to introduce information in a logical, sequential way:

Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney met Lennon that July, and joined as a rhythm guitarist shortly after. In February 1958, McCartney invited his friend George Harrison, also fifteen, to watch the band. Harrison auditioned for Lennon, impressing him with his playing.

"The former" and "the latter" are rarely the best solution to repetition. They typically obscure prose more than they clarify, and can force the reader to reread the prose.

Coldplay's third album, X&Y (2005), was influenced by Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode and Johnny Cash. The song "Til Kingdom Come" was written as a collaboration with the latter before he died.

In most cases, just repeating the name is clean and natural:

Coldplay's third album, X&Y (2005), was influenced by Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode and Johnny Cash. The song "Til Kingdom Come" was written as a collaboration with Cash before he died.

Where repeating the name feels repetitive, the cause is usually inefficient syntax. For example:

Sarah and Louise went to a supermarket, where the former bought the latter an ice cream.

Without "the latter" and "the former", the sentence might feel repetitive:

Sarah and Louise went to a supermarket, where Sarah bought Louise an ice cream.

This is an example of how repetition usually emerges from repeated information, not repeated words. As it stands, the sentence structure requires us to state the subjects (Sarah and Louise) twice. We already know who the subjects are, so this is repeated information.

The solution is to restructure the sentence:

At a supermarket, Sarah bought Louise an ice cream.

The word "title" is sometimes used as a synonym for media such as movies, magazines, and particularly video games. For example:

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the third main title in the Sonic the Hedgehog series.

This seems to have been absorbed from press releases and video game journalism (reliable sources of bad writing). It's an example of the specialized style fallacy – in other words, copying the writing style of specialist sources without considering Wikipedia's general readership.

"Title" removes information and creates ambiguity. For example:

• Sega announced the title Sonic Colors could mean that Sega announced the game or the title of the game.
• Sonic the Hedgehog titles might refer to the Sonic the Hedgehog games, films, comics or some combination of all three.

Why be imprecise? Be clear and direct and write "game", "film", etc instead of "title". Or remove the word entirely where possible: Sega announced Sonic Colors.

Readers can see when a word or phrase is in a title or phrase. We don't need to tell them.

Consider this sentence:

Batman Returns is a 1992 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton, based on the titular DC Comics character.

This likely derives from a fear of repeating the word "Batman". But replacing the second mention with words such as "titular", "eponymous" or "title character" only adds redundancy. It goes without saying that the name Batman is in the title Batman Returns.

"Eponymous" can reduce clarity. Consider various company founders and the stores carrying their names: Benjamin Altman / B. Altman; Maxwell Kohl / Kohl's; Barney Pressman / Barneys; John Nordstrom / Nordstrom; Sam Walton / Sam's Club; Kenneth Wood / Kenwood. The names of these companies can't be predicted from the founders' names.

When used with wikilinks, terms such as "eponymous" make the wikilink destination less clear (see

).

Be clear and direct:

Batman Returns is a 1992 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton, based on the DC Comics character Batman.

And there's no excuse at all for "the Cars and their eponymous debut album, The Cars". Just say "the Cars and their debut album, The Cars".

A word sometimes used to avoid repetition. For example:

The Standing Committee is the highest organ of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) when the aforementioned body is not convened in a plenary session.

As with other cases of elegant variation, it's better to just write the word again, or use a pronoun:

The Standing Committee is the highest organ of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) when the CCDI is not convened in a plenary session.

Similarly to "titular" and "eponymous", readers can tell when you're mentioning something you have previously mentioned, and it probably isn't important to point out. For example:

Huayllabamba may also refer to the capitals of the aforementioned districts.

Huayllabamba may also refer to the capitals of those districts.

In articles about different works with the same title, it's common to wikilink using something like [[article title|of the same name]] or [[article title|the eponymous novel]]. For example:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel of the same name by Michel Faber.

There are numerous problems with this:

• It's extremely conspicuous — its only function is to avoid repeating the original term, and so is uncomfortably close to actually writing "I am avoiding repeating the name here".
• It adds no information — if the title is the same, then readers can see that.
• It's often longer than the term it replaces.
• It can make it less clear what is being referred to.
• It's a cliche.

The solution isn't necessarily obvious. For example:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the novel by Michel Faber.

This isn't ideal, because it isn't clear where the wikilink novel leads: the novel Under the Skin, or the article about novels generally?

Writing out the name in full is clear:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel Under the Skin by Michel Faber.

It may be clunky, but it beats "of the same name", which tries to mask clunkiness with worse clunkiness.

Alternatively, including "the" in the link text makes "the novel" unambiguous, especially when combined with the year of publication, per

:

Under the Skin is a 2013 science fiction film directed and co-written by Jonathan Glazer, loosely based on the 2000 novel by Michel Faber.

This comes at the cost of obscuring the name of the novel. That's OK if the context suggests the film and novel share the name, as in the example above.

Alternatively, we could use two sentences to reduce the sense of repetition.

The Martian is a 2015 science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and starring Matt Damon. Drew Goddard adapted the screenplay from The Martian, a 2011 novel by Andy Weir.

Now consider this example: "The territory of the municipality of Grado extends between the mouth of the Isonzo and the Adriatic Sea and the lagoon of the same name." Which "same name"? Is it the Grado Lagoon? The Isonzo Lagoon? The Adriatic Lagoon?

• WP:Respectively, discussing the overuse and abuse of "respectively".

• Second Mentions, a Twitter account documenting examples of elegant variation
• A New Yorker article about elegant variation that mentions this Wikipedia essay