Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 February 14

= February 14 =

Punctuating a list embedded within another list
What is a good way to generally punctuate a vertical list (bulleted, numbered or otherwise) in which there is another sub-list emebedded into the one of the level-1 entries and the individual entries are a mixture of simple expressions and more complex/complete sentences? My question is not really related to punctuating lists using Wiki-syntax per se, but more about punctuating multi-level lists in general.

For example: This is the introductory sentence for the list:
 * Item 1;
 * This is the second item in the list;
 * The third item in the lists consists of the following:
 * Item 3a;
 * Item 3b;
 * This is item 3c;
 * The last item of the list.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd retain your colons, but I'd drop your semicolons and period (full stop), which aren't wrong but are mere clutter. This would be a good way for me; I don't know or (sorry!) much care what the style guides say. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP is not asking about the punctuation marks at the end of each line. They are asking how to do nested bullet points. --Viennese Waltz 08:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The question was "What is a good way to generally punctuate...", and I agree the semicolons and period are unnecessary. There are lots of lists in Wikipedia and most of them don't have any punctuation.--Shantavira|feed me 08:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments so far. Just for reference, my question isn’t related to Wikipedia in anyway, i.e. it’s not regarding a list used in a Wikipedia article. It’s more of a general question as it pertains to a formal writing style generally seen in a journal or other academic publication. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We were told that "the individual entries are a mixture of simple expressions and more complex/complete sentences". In formal writing it's usual for entries within a list to be grammatically parallel.  For example, you would not say that they might be:
 * Nouns
 * Adjectives
 * They might also include complete sentences. In that case they might require different punctuation.
 * If the list entries are complete sentences and any of them contain multiple sentences, then I'd say they should be punctuated normally. Alternatively you could recast the list to avoid having such a complex entry. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A good example of where

the individual entries are a mixture of simple expressions and more complex/complete sentences

would be statutes. See, for example, this produced by the Remainers before they threw in the towel. 2A00:23C1:E104:5900:F029:2265:D7E0:EE0B (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it's interesting that you bring up statutes because that's sort of the thing that made me want to seek clarification. Often in sets of rules/requirements, etc. you have vertical lists (bulleted or numbered) where a general "as follows" type of state precedes a list of various entries of various gramatical constructions, which in turn are often further broken up into sub-entries. For example, this, this and this (no need to read all of these from cover to cover; just giving some examples) have multi-level lists for certain requirements and seem to follow a specific pattern of punctuation and capitalization. The format seems to be consistent throughout each document and perhaps the format used are just particular to this style of writing or document. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

List of list in a sentence
Following on from the previous question, am I right in thinking that if you write lists of lists in a sentence (as opposed to bullet points) you would separate each main list with semicolons: "You have these choices of sandwich: egg, cress, and mayonnaise; bacon, lettuce, tomato; cheese and pickle; or Hummus, tomato, and lettuce." It is one of the grammar things I think I remember but I'm not sure where from! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Semicolon explains that one use is "between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation ... where the semicolons function as serial commas" to avoid mass confusion, which is the situation here. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ✅

Photos on a board linked by string-- is there a term for this?
Is there a term for the kind of bulletin board setup with photos connected by string shown in this comic and this video? Structurally it's like a concept map, but I'm wondering if there's a specific word or phrase for this kind of arrangement. 188.74.64.13 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a parody of boards that are shown on TV shows used by police solving crimes, and also by conspiracy theorists. The homicide detectives in Castle (TV series) usually use one in their cases.  Probably "evidence board" or "investigation board" (no Wikipedia  articles under those names)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * TV Tropes jokingly refers to the concept in general as "string theory"; there are more terms (e.g. "conspiracy wall") in the examples there. John Bunting (serial killer) called his elaborate design "the spider wall", but that was apparently meant as a pun involving both the web-like appearance and the Australian prison slang meaning of rock spider.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * On some cop shows they call it a "murder board", although that's a pretty specific application of a more general idea. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 00:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And it does not have to involve the use of string. I've seen murder boards on TV more often without the string. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The items connected don't have to be photos. They can be newspaper clippings or what not. I have seen the term "twine-and-thumbtack conspiracy collage", which is apt but not in common use. --Lambiam 08:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or "connecting the wrong dots". <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * See also Link Analysis Diagraming. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Alternating (between)"
Is it correct/necessary to use "between" in the following sentence?
 * "The book presents a wide range of writing styles, alternating between soliloquies and aphorisms."

I feel there is a subtle difference between the two (if they are indeed both correct), but I can't quite put my finger on it. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Here "alternating" is used as a verb, and I think the "between" is mandatory. You could also say "The book presents a wide range of writing styles; soliloquies and aphorisms alternate".
 * As an adjective, it could be " ... containing alternating soliloquies and aphorisms". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Between" seems OK, but I do not understand the subject sentence. Soliloquies and aphorisms do not represent a wide range of styles. Also, alternating implies that each is followed by the other. Is that the intended meaning? Perhaps: "The book presents a wide range of writing styles, including alternating soliloquies and aphorisms." Jmar67 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure soliloquies and aphorisms can be considered writing styles. Two writers could each write a soliloquy in their own, very different styles. Hamlet the academic: "I shall now consider the question whether it is better to continue or to cease existing. On one hand, while existing, one has to cope with any unfortunate events that may befall one. ..." Or compare the flowery "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" with the bland but snappy "Prevention is better than cure". --Lambiam 08:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The style here seems to be the interlacing of the two. I'd like an example. Jmar67 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the suggestions. The sentence I offered was an example inspired by a phrase that I've been meaning to simplify recently, which goes:
 * "Many of his works contain sections employing strongly contrasting approaches to musical architecture; some of them use baroque forms, while others are athematic." (Source: Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, paragraph 3 of the lead)
 * "His works often employ strongly contrasting approaches to musical architecture, alternating (between) baroque forms and athematic writing." (What I had in mind.)
 * To answer Jmar67's question, yes, one can follow the other. Would "alternating X with Y" be an option? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. But alternating implies the sequence XYXY...: one must follow the other. That appears to be what you are saying. Jmar67 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The sentence in the lead is ambiguous and confusing and should be rewritten. In such cases I tend to look at the referenced sources to see if I can figure out the intended meaning. But the lead is entirely uncited, and I also see no corresponding claims in the later sections that help to interpret this. The lead statement suggests that many of Sorabji's compositions contain sections that mix baroque forms with athematism. In the main part of the text, athematism is mentioned, but only in relation to his early works. Baroque forms (fugue, toccata) are also mentioned, but only in relation to his mature works. The lead sentence is ambiguous about the scale of the units in which these styles "alternate" – sections of works, whole works, or the totality of his oeuvre? As phrased, the first would seem the most likely interpretation, but the main text hints at the last one. Instead of "alternate between", consider "combine" or "contain elements of both". --Lambiam 13:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * there is a subtle difference between the two: Between which two? (Between the two what?) -- 08:45, 15 February 2020 Hoary