User talk:2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1

Impacts
Just a quick note: there's no problem as such with the replacement of "impact" with "effect" (both are fine under the Manual of Style) it does present a problem when it goes against community consensus. For example, on a page like Impacts of tourism, the page's title clearly indicates that the consensus is that it's an article about "impacts". In that case, you should avoid changing it without seeing consensus on the talk page. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest not referring to it as an "error" or "widely ridiculed"; editors who have used the word are unlikely to appreciate that. It has, at this point, entered common usage, no matter what the Oxford Dictionary may think. I'd probably also prefer if that hadn't happened, but it has. Languages are fluid. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi AntiDionysius, thanks very much for this. As I mentioned in my other comment (we were ships in the night!), 'effects' is still widely accepted as the standard and is overwhelmingly numerically superior on Wikipedia. In this way, it surely feels that the natural thing would be to bring the article into line with this standard rather than to give in to a formation that, you yourself concede, is inferior to this? One of the great joys of Wikipedia is to be a shining beacon, and it certainly feels to me that, given its far less frequent usage, 'impacts' is at a stage whereby its long march can still be arrested; I am of the opinion that we should be arresting this march rather than abetting it. I am constantly in awe of how many people Wikipedia can reach; it delights me that we have the collective power to enforce factual and linguistic standards. I would love to encourage a debate on this subject among the editing community and Wikipedia administrators. Together, we can have a really inspiring mission on our hands. 2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In future edits on this subject, I shall remove the 'widely ridiculed' for purposes of diplomacy. However, I do think it is important, where possible, to promote a stigma around this term, as language use relies on self-policing. 2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mere numerical superiority of one type of language is not in itself an argument for getting rid of the other. And while I find the use of "impacts" annoying, I object to prescriptivism much more. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this, AntiDionysius. I am not a prescriptivist; indeed, I am highly in favour of many slang terms, which I am happy to incorporate into my everyday speech. However, 'impacts' is jargon. (I recommend Jonathan Meades's writing on jargon versus slang.) Slang revitalises whereas jargon deadens the soul. This is not a matter of linguistic schools of thought, but about its effect on the mind. Every use of 'impacts' makes us less sensible to beauty and more mechanical in thought; bit by bit, we become less human; a unit, not a being. It is, overwhelmingly, a moral case: not merely annoying, but a noxious danger to human flourishing. 2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1 (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, AntiDionysius. Could you point me to the relevant part of the Manual of Style? In addition, how would one go about changing it? Searching on Wikipedia, 'effects of' is standard with 77,479 hits; 'impacts of' is an innovation with 9,823 hits, most of these being very recent. From what I understand, Jimbo's original mission for the site was 'to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language'. I also want it to be of the highest possible quality, and this means upholding linguistic standards rather than giving in to decline (as I point out, the countable 'impacts' is not endorsed by the Oxford English Dictionary). The case, to me, feels watertight, given the lack of formal recognition that the formation 'impacts' has received. I'm less au fait with the inner workings on Wikipedia so would it be possible to make this case on the language community's behalf? 2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You certainly could propose a change/addition to the manual of style if you wanted. The best place to do that would be the MOS talk page. I'd note though that strict adherence to what one dictionary (or indeed dictionaries as a whole) says language should look like is not currently accepted as a necessary or desirable part of writing on Wikipedia. Like I said, we operate on consensus; if you want to change that consensus, it will probably (not that I'm a soothsayer) require a more detailed argument than simply pointing to the dictionary. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this, AntiDionysius. I am happy to develop such an argument; as I mention, it comes down not just to authority but to euphony (and indeed the spiritual impoverishment that such managerial innovations promote). I will consider registering as an editor and promoting this debate. 2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, I just wanted to clarify that my issue was with 'impacts' as a countable noun. I have no issue with the singular, which is the accepted standard. Changing the name of the article from 'Impacts of tourism' to 'Impact of tourism' would be merely a one letter difference; by doing something as small as changing one letter - one letter! - you would be contributing significantly to arresting linguistic and spiritual decay on a global scale. Feels like a no-brainer to me! 2A02:8012:79D:0:9941:57E:3113:FBC1 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)