Wikipedia talk:Use short sentences and lists

Supporters if this rule include: StefanRybo, tbc, Arthur (The advice, use short sentences and use short lists, is more often good than not--as long as they're not shortened beyond usefulness. The New York Times grade level reading score is usually about 6th grade these days, but only because of the modern use of short sentences and paragraphs. And short lists are nice too. On Japanese cuisine, I broke a list of 28 Japanese foods into an organized list of eight or so types of dishes with 3 to 5 examples each. It's so much more clear now. I believe that a good writer who edits his or her work with an eye to shorter sentences and better grouping of lists is bound to improve it.)

Opponents include: AxelBoldt (strongly). ("Short sentences", "Seven items"?? Are we writing a powerpoint presentation?) JHK (what Axel said), 24 (strongly - the topic is as complex as it is, period. That said, likely you are putting too much in one article if you find you have just long laundry lists, which probably should only apply to names...also multiple layers or subheadings helps), LDC (The study that came out with the "7 +/- 3" statistic was fatally flawed, and it's basically nonsense. Einstein said it best: "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.")

On the fence include: Tarquin. Lists are good when there's a clear need for one. Short sentences are not necessarily good, nor do they guarantee readability. Writing well and clearly is more than following a list of rules -- otherwise we'd all be able to do it. User:Vicki Rosenzweig: Several short, choppy sentences aren't better than one longer one. Commas and clauses are a fine part of the English language. Most sentences benefit from verbs. Also, longer sentences can be better if they use familiar words and offer connections to things the reader already knows. Vicki Rosenzweig

Sounds like dumbing down to me. Do we have to comply with USA educational standards (sorry Portland).jimfbleak 14:22 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin's recent change (reversion) on this page actually reintroduced misinformation that I tried to remove. Human short term memory capacity is not 7 +/- 3. Indeed, the title of George Miller's (1956) paper reads, in part, "The magical number seven, plus or minus two".

Nor does Miller's magic number have anything to do with effective sentence length or list length in an encyclopedia. Our readers aren't trying to memorize the words that make up the sentences. They aren't trying to hold the list items in short term memory. And even if they were, shorter sentences don't equate to fewer items to process. Because of "chunking", a 40 word sentence may still have only seven "memory items".

Why all this pseudo-psychologizing in an article entitled Use short sentences and lists? And keep in mind, I'm a fan of the article's advice. It makes bad writers better writers. And it makes good writers pay attention. But George Miller got squat to do with it.

And why, in an article that advises the use of short sentences do we find:


 * Longer lists, unending prose and unwieldy sentences are uncomfortable for most readers to process, especially on a computer monitor screen.

Doesn't that really mean "Long lists, passages, and sentences are hard to read"? And wouldn't it be sufficient to say, "especially on a computer"?

The article Use short sentences and lists, as it now stands, is effective testimony that the advice is needed. This is a clumsy article in many ways.


 * Use all kinds of grouping instead sounds like Engrish to me. Perhaps "Use more grouping techniques"


 * Use lists, sublists, paragraphing? Shouldn't that be Use lists, sublists, and paragraphs?

My, now entirely erased, revision described the rule Use short sentences and lists in a simple manner. Now we're back to an article full of misinformed talk about information processing and awkward prose.

Arthur 20:21 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Arthur, I apologize. Your version is not lost -- follow the "older versions" link on the page, find your version. You can edit it to copy chunks of what you wrote to a bew version, or you can restore your version entirely -- up to you. -- Tarquin 20:24 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * wow! That was graceful. You've taught me how to be a better participant here. I'll try to follow your model. Arthur 20:47 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that I, a proponent of the rule, feel that the rule has been overextended now in this article? Fewer words is not always better. Telling words are important. Oh, maybe I'll go back and lengthen a few sentences here later. Arthur 23:27 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)