Talk:Yakushima

Circular "in shape"

@Revirvlkodlaku: objects to my editing "round in shape" to "round" and my giving examples demonstrating that it is pleonastic, which he interpreted as sarcasm.

I am not alone in finding phrases like this objectionable. A quick web search finds multiple criticisms even of this particular turn of phrase: [https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/stylepoints.pdf], [https://libguides.grace.edu/grammar/style], as well as of the general case: "When a word implies its category, don’t write both the word and the category. For instance, round in shape, heavy in weight, and pink in color are redundant because we know that round is a shape, heavy is a weight, and pink is a color." [https://studio.smu.ca/ac-resources/redundant-words]. Strunk and White summarize this as "omit needless words".[https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/03/omit-needless-words-elements-style-turns-50] --Macrakis (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Macrakis, I'm less concerned about the expression than the attitude you demonstrate in your edit summary—I find it unnecessary and unprofessional. You are well aware that, while redundant, "round in shape" is a common expression, so there's no need to leave "clever" commentary; just change it and describe your edit in a neutral manner. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry my edit comment could be interpreted as having a bad attitude. In my mind, I was just demonstrating the redundancy, just as in the "When a word implies its category..." source. --Macrakis (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)