Talk:The Nasty Bits
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
"Center on" or "revolve around"[edit]
In English, something can either be in the center, or can revolve around it. Thus things can either center on something, or they can revolve around something. they can't "center around" something, that's an oxymoron. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are no such ultimatums in the English language. Unless you can cite a Wikipedia policy to the effect that only your preferred wording can be used, please accept the wording of someone who has read the book. I encourage you to read the book yourself and then afterwards to engage in a discussion of how you would like this worded. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The issue here is proper (and frankly sensible) English. Wikipedia policy doesn't actually cover which phrase is proper, nor would one expect it to. I'm still not sure why you want poorly worded sentences and oxymorons in Wikipedia articles; can you explain? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Or to quote from The New York Times Manual of Style,
- center(v.). Do not write center around because the verb means gather at a point. Logic calls for center on, center in or revolve around. p. 61.
- Even if the phrase is commonly used, it's bad writing; Wikipedia doesn't need more bad writing. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, the issue here seems to be only your preferred wording, and you have not established a consensus per WP:BRD as requested per my edit summary, but rather are making unilateral decisions backed up by only your opinion (and now a single journalism source), and are engaging in edit-warring rather than discussion and consensus-building. I have explained why "center around" applies here, in my edit summaries. Do you need further elaboration on this page? Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it appears to me to be quite the opposite; I've backed up my view with an authoritative source/stylebook, whereas your views are purely personal opinion. Can you explain why it's better to say these anecdotes "center around" food, rather than "revolve around" food? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- As I explained in my edit summary, the essays in question only tangentially refer to food. They neither center on nor revolve around food. Therefore, they center around it rather than on it. "Center on" is narrow and defining, "center around" is broad, loose, and non-defining. The distinction is very important here, because it clarifies the fact that these are not food or culinary essays (something that one might otherwise infer, since Anthony Bourdain is a chef). But in fact the essays, and the book, are not narrowly about food at all -- they (and it) are mostly philosophical musings and opinionizing, with food (in the particular essays referred to) only serving as the smallest of jumping off points for much broader subjects. So the phrase is an important distinction which lets the Wikipedia reader know this book is not a niche book of interest only to foodies. "Centered around" is not only different in meaning and scope, it is commonly and widely used, and perfectly fine English: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
- The distinction you are making regarding essays that "center around" rather than "center on" something doesn't actually exist in English. That said, I don't really care enough to argue any further; if you want your article to have bad writing in it, that's up to you. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- As I explained in my edit summary, the essays in question only tangentially refer to food. They neither center on nor revolve around food. Therefore, they center around it rather than on it. "Center on" is narrow and defining, "center around" is broad, loose, and non-defining. The distinction is very important here, because it clarifies the fact that these are not food or culinary essays (something that one might otherwise infer, since Anthony Bourdain is a chef). But in fact the essays, and the book, are not narrowly about food at all -- they (and it) are mostly philosophical musings and opinionizing, with food (in the particular essays referred to) only serving as the smallest of jumping off points for much broader subjects. So the phrase is an important distinction which lets the Wikipedia reader know this book is not a niche book of interest only to foodies. "Centered around" is not only different in meaning and scope, it is commonly and widely used, and perfectly fine English: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
- Actually, it appears to me to be quite the opposite; I've backed up my view with an authoritative source/stylebook, whereas your views are purely personal opinion. Can you explain why it's better to say these anecdotes "center around" food, rather than "revolve around" food? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, the issue here seems to be only your preferred wording, and you have not established a consensus per WP:BRD as requested per my edit summary, but rather are making unilateral decisions backed up by only your opinion (and now a single journalism source), and are engaging in edit-warring rather than discussion and consensus-building. I have explained why "center around" applies here, in my edit summaries. Do you need further elaboration on this page? Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)