Forum:Etc. vs et al.

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Etc. vs et al.

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Proposal

Policy currently says,

"[It is sometimes] impossible to cite all the stories that could be used as sources for a particular statement: how many stories could back up the claim that "the Doctor's TARDIS was blue"? In such cases, use three or four sources, preferably from different mediums if available, followed by "etc.". It is preferable not to use "et al.", as the phrase refers, strictly speaking, to animate rather than inanimate subjects."Tardis:Citation

Unfortunately, this is bad advice!

"Etc." is short for the Latin et cetera, which Wikipedia translates roughly as "and the rest of such things". As countless grammar guides across the internet will advise, et cetera should be used only when the remainder of the list can easily be understood or is already known. Grammarly explains (emphasis mine),

"Correct: The children should bring paper, pencils, scissors, etc. (You can discern the category from the examples.)

Incorrect: The children should bring crayons, blankets, birth certificates, etc. (The class is not clear. Unless you previously state the connection between the items and the rest of the list is easily imaginable, you can’t use etc.)"[1]

I think those examples make it clear that our use of "etc." in parenthetical citations is incorrect in the vast, vast majority of cases. Here's one example from The Doctor:

Some events still provided painful reminders of his role in the Time War. (TV: The Rings of Akhaten, The Time of the Doctor, etc.)

Is the rest of the list "easily imaginable"? Using only the two items presented, can you extrapolate the rest? I can't, and I don't expect that most of our readers can, either. This is incorrect usage.

Thankfully, there's an easy alternative to fix the issue: "et al.", which means "others forming some group". Many grammar guides say that "et al." should only be used for lists of people, since this is common style, but there's actually no such restriction in the full Latin phrase, which can be either animate (et alii; et aliae) and inanimate (et alia). The important difference between et cetera and et alia is that the latter has no "easily imaginable" requirement. As Najawin once summarized,

""Et cetera" is closer to "and so on", but it's non trivial to figure out what the other sources in question are when you have a list, especially when the DWU is as varied as it is. "Et al" allows us to be clear that there are others involved but you might not be able to figure out what they are from context."Najawin

It's for this reason that, despite T:CITE specifically saying never to use "et al." in our citations, the wiki uses it much more than "etc."! For instance, on The Doctor "et al." is used 15 times whereas "etc." is used only 5 times. Rather than leaving our citation system an inconsistent hodge-podge, we should reverse T:CITE's recommendations and make "et al." the official standard across the wiki. – n8 (☎) 22:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with this proposl. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 06:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I, too, agree with this proposal, but does et. al incorporate etc.; i.e. can et. al be used in cases where the rest of the list is easily extrapolated from context? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 07:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. I understand your reasoning about why "etc" is not the best fit, but I do not understand why you think et al. is the better alternative. We do not speak Latin, we speak English, and in English, et al. denotes lists of people. It seems misguided to replace one slightly wrong term with a somewhat more wrong term.

The etymology of a term or phrase isn't always the most relevant when these terms/phrases grow and evolve, take on new meanings or lose old ones.

Also, your example of the usage of etc/et al. on the Doctor is frankly meaningless. Although technically Tardis:Citation states that "etc" is correct, it has long been held that "et al." was correct, and there was a forum thread before the forums were kaput that was in near unanimous agreement that etc was better! It just so happens that a policy technically already agreed with the consensus, which wasn't known to us at the time. So of course our pages are going to have mixed usages, and counting them is ridiculous when I could go over there right now and change them all with a quick "ctrl + f". Not only using ourselves as a source seems to miss the point about accurate referencing, you reference something that is known to be muddled and easily editable by anyone. Someone could change etc/et al. to "Electric Boogaloo" but it doesn't suddenly mean that "Electric Boogaloo" is the correct term.

"Et al. comes from the Latin phrase meaning “and others.” It is usually styled with a period, but you will occasionally see et al as well.

Et al. typically stands in for two or more names, especially in bibliographical information."Merriam Webster

While "etc" may not necessarily be that helpful in when trying to list off a bunch of unrelated sources to a statement, stitching et al. on instead, in modern usage, implies that the sources are people. But in many other cases, etc is the correct term.

The Doctor's TARDIS was a time machine. (TV: An Unearthly Child ^[+]Loading...["An Unearthly Child (TV story)"], Rose ^[+]Loading...["Rose (TV story)"], etc.)

See what I mean?

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Epsilon's response here is somewhat misleading. By my count, Thread:254184 in User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon IV has 3 against et al, 2 in favor (not counting Epsilon, who was at one point in favor and then moved on), and then 5 who didn't seem to comment on the topic or were more ambiguous as to where they stood. I believe we did lose some comments in that thread, (which happened near the UCP move) as I think both Nate and myself commented at one point. But that's what we can see. And it doesn't support the idea that people were massively against et al. See also Thread:129568 User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon II which had no clear resolution. Tangerine brings up the idea that et al is primarily for people, but Czech thinks it's genuinely useful here because "There are some statements that are so wide-ranging that et al does make some sense to me", and the OP explicitly notes that this was held to be saying "and others", as per the original Latin, at the time.

I note as well that the word "typically" appears in Epsilon's quotation. Is this wiki particularly typical?

For those who are particularly finicky on this point, might I suggest that the other et al. also works as translation of what we want? It's just the right answer. Even if we don't use et alia specifically. Najawin ☎ 17:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't meant to be misleading; I haven't read that forum thread in four-ish years.

I would say that this Wiki's needs for such a term are typical, as we're just trying to use it in in-text citations.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest you did! Misleading, not disingenuous. Since you referenced the thread only vaguely, not the specific thread location/name, it was my assumption you didn't go back and look for it. And, well, it was 3 years ago.

Our needs might be, but the wiki has long marched to the beat of our own drummer. So I don't think that approach is in itself particularly compelling. Regardless, I once again reiterate that et alibi is strictly correct, even if we're not fans of et alia. Najawin ☎ 18:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up et alibi, which explicitly refers to locations, a very tidy fit for our use case of "locations where this fact can be sourced"! – n8 (☎) 14:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further opinions on this? Bongo50 ☎ 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I once again reiterate that et alibi is strictly correct, even if people don't like et alia. I'd be interested to know if Epsilon has any objection to using et al given this context. Najawin ☎ 20:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm against misusing et al. to refer to stories given that it is used in reference to people, usually authors in bibliographies. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Ngl, "et alibi/alia" seems obtuse and pedantic. It mat be technically correct, but how many casual readers — or editors for that matter — actually know it exists? I certainly never heard of it before this thread, nor have I since in any other situation. And I read a lot. My preference goes "etc" -> "et alibi/alia" -> "et al".

"Etc" may not be quite precise enough, but it communicates a general idea that everyone understands.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Epsilon, maybe Najawin and I haven't been sufficiently clear: no one is suggesting that we type out et alibi! The suggestion is that we would type et al – which surely you've seen many times, both on the wiki and off it – with the understanding that it stands for et alibi. Which it validly does.

In lists of places, et alibi may be used, which is also abbreviated et al.; et alibi means "and elsewhere".Wikipedia

Sure, maybe it's obtuse and pedantic. Unfortunately, Tardis:Citation forced us into the obtusity and pedantry game years ago by proscribing et al in the first place. If we're going to be obtuse and pedantic either way, we'd might as well bother to be correct.

Jack, to be clear, unless you have new arguments against the analysis presented in the OP and by Najawin in the discussion section, it's etc, not et al, which is being misused in our citations. – NateBumber (☎) 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that's even more unintuitive. "We should use 'et al', but not in its traditional meaning but as an abbreviation for 'et alibi'." To 99.9% of readers, they will not understand that nuance, and will think it means the traditional meaning. It's like saying "I'm waving a 'gun' in your face, which is actually short for a 'gunnysack'." Most people won't understand the differences!

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

[EDIT conflict] Like Epsilon has pointed out, looking up definitions of "et al." shows what it's used for in the English language and that doesn't extend beyond people's names. If "etc." is deemed inappropriate (which I can understanding the reasoning for) then I'm against choosing to replace with the misuse of another Latin term. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn't "et alibi" only when referring to other places in a singular document, anyway? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that et al is technically correct and just is somewhat counter intuitive. Whereas etc is, strictly speaking, incorrect, but gets the point across you wish to make. Epsilon, does et al not also get this point across, even if it may cause some people to give it a funny look? If you came across a list of sources that ended with "et al", you'd understand that they meant what you'd mean as "etc", even if you weren't aware of "et alibi", no? You might give it an odd look, sure. But you'd still get the basic underlying idea. Right?

As for the "singular document" response, that's not strictly speaking correct. That's the common usage - for obvious reasons, people wish to cite every singular source in an academic paper. But it's not the literal definition. And our case is somewhat unique, mounds of sources that often times bear no resemblance to each other and can't be derived from the other members of the list. Najawin ☎ 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I maintain my understanding that "et al" is not technically correct, as its common usage denotes lists of people, and the argument to abbreviate the Latin term "et alibi" to "et al." is outright confusing to anyone who isn't aware of the proposed, super-specific usage. "Etc." may not be 100% correct in all cases — although it absolutely is in many — it still seems like the better option. It may annoy my prescriptive attitude to language, but it is the lesser of two metaphorical evils.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

03:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Et. al. is an abbreviation for either et alia or et alibi. Is et alibi not technically correct? Note, not just misleading. Incorrect? What you've just described is misleading, not incorrect. Najawin ☎ 03:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the problems people have with et al., I would be fine with it personally. I don't think it would confuse readers; the usage here is unorthodox yet similar enough that readers would easily understand its meaning. I don't think they'll confuse World Enough and Time for a person! If it is deemed too much of an issue, then why don't we remove all ambiguity caused by the Latin abbreviation and simply use "and others"? Apart from that, I remain in favour of the continued usage of etc., but only in cases in which it is appropriate.

Of course this is ignoring the reason for the lack of an alternative term, which I'd hazard a guess is because it's frowned upon to incompletely cite a list of sources. If these sources exist, they should be cited. Hence, by typing "et al(ibi)", we are admitting to not having to hand the complete list of sources we are attributing our statement to, which potentially may contribute to the perpetuation of a myth. So maybe we should instead be citing using the {{Facts}} template like so: (TV: World Enough and Time^{[additional sources needed]}) until we have found all of the necessary sources. There will be cases where the number of sources is simply too numerous to cite, in which case we could cite the original or most relevant sources plus something like: (See more: Regeneration#Regenerative cycle). In the case of continuity sections, which I'd wager constitutes a significant portion of et al. usage, we could change the statement to "as first seen in X", rather than (e.g.) attempting to list all time K9 said "affirmative".

This is all just a collection of nascent ideas though, but you can see how et al. as a concept has the potential to be misused, or at the very least lacks in completeness. But maybe we deem that to be ok, I don't know. Danochy ☎ 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm very much in favor of et al. It may be primarily used for lists of people but it is not exclusively so. Additionally, it's most commonly used in lists of sources— it's just that we use source titles instead of that of their authors in in-line citations, though that's less the case with the ongoing implementation of {{cite source}}.

Considering usual usage, I also think et al. is less confusing than etc. While there are no doubt many explanations on this that could explain either side, I am particularly fond of this explanation found on Stack Exchange:

Typically, etc. refers to things and et al. to people but I don't think that's the key distinction.
Etc. means "others of the same sort". Et al. means "other from the same group" or "others forming some group". So "mice, rats, etc." but "Snooki, Sitch, et al."
The reader should always be able to fill in more (plausible if not necessarily correct) examples with "etc." so "mice, rats, voles, gophers..." (on the assumption that the "sort" being enumerated is rodents), whereas my et al. example refers to a fixed set (fluorescent orange cast members of a particular TV show) where there are other members but I can't name them.

This latter case is exactly what we are doing in citations, listing sources that together support a claim, not a general list of them. In fact, it's the very point— the readers don't necessarily know the other sources being referenced, nor are they expected to, and those listed are the most important/prominent ones supporting the claim. This explanation also puts into words perfectly why I intuitively found etc. to sound wrong. (As would be "crush the lesser races, conquer the galaxy, unimaginable power, unlimited rice pudding… et al." Sorry, I had to make that joke, but it still illustrates the point.)

That said, I agree with Danochy that whatever we go with, it should be used carefully. It should be reserved for "there too many sources to list", not "there aren't enough sources to cite". Usually in citations, et al. implies sources that are cited elsewhere in the work or at least the bibliography. While I don't know if that should be strictly enforced, it's a good rule of thumb. Ideally, et al. will be used for broader statements in many sources, and then the article expands on the details of what specific sources have to say about it. Chubby Potato ☎ 21:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Although I understand the reasoning of that message board user, it's an interesting evaluation of situational context, I'm not entirely sure their view should be taken over that of conventional usage? Idk. But I think, even if we were to accept their reasoning and change all instances of "etc." to "et al.", it would still be unintuitive to readsrs unfamiliar with the reasoning.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

See, to me, their "view" is explaining conventional usage? And due to that I find it far more intuitive, whereas the usage of "etc" in citations seems confusing to me. I wonder if this is a dialectal thing… Chubby Potato ☎

Conclusion

There's too much prescripting going on around here, and not enough describing. There is widespread precedent that our policies take a kind of "descriptivism with guardrails" approach; indeed, at a broader scale than mere grammar, it's the essence of the spirit of the updated T:BOUND. Our manual of style takes notes of what our editing base naturally trends towards doing, and then codifies that in a coherent way that can then be applied consistently. That's how we got many of our foundational policies, from Tardis:Doctors to Tardis:Italics, and it seems to me wholly unacceptable to suddenly turn to dour-faced, dictionary-worshipping prescriptivists in the face of an extremely widespread, bespoke usage.

In short this thread, and others like it, should not ever ask "what do grammatical authorities say is the correct style?" but "what do we, the sole authority which matters here, say is correct for our purposes?". If the sole argument against "et al." is that some people in Oxford would frown at it, let them strain their eyebrows 'till they drop off. I frankly don't believe that using "et al." for inanimates (which, on top of everything else, is correct in the eye of the Vaunted Authorities on the basis of the et alibi thing! either you're pedantically sticking to the letter of the law in the face of common usage, or you aren't!) is going to be confusing to the casual reader. It's an imaginary problem. We've never had a complaint saying "but why do you say (TV: Thing, Anothe Thing, et al.) as if you're citing people as well as stories? I thought you only cited stories here?". It's not a real misunderstanding.

The important thing however is that we don't have to choose. As per User:NateBumber's original OP and User:Chubby Potato's discovery, one common descriptive rule-of-thumb about how et al. and etc. are used gives the two different, distinct meanings:

• "etc." should be used to mean "and so on and so forth", "and more of the above"; the reader either knows, or can easily figure out with a bit of digging, what additional sources we are alluding to, because they form a continuity with the few we do cite.

For example: "The First Doctor then began to travel with Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright through Time and Space. (TV: An Unearthly Child ^[+]Loading...["An Unearthly Child (TV story)"], The Dead Planet ^[+]Loading...["The Dead Planet (TV story)"], The Edge of Destruction ^[+]Loading...["The Edge of Destruction (TV story)"], etc."

• "et al." should be used to mean "and various other sources"; the sources are scattered and eclectic, and although they are too numerous to name, have nothing more in common than that they all support the claim being cited (something which, I hasten to establish, it would be entirely too tautological to use as grounds to say they form a coherent class and are thus worth the "etc").

For example: "The Doctor faced vampires on many occasions. (TV: State of Decay ^[+]Loading...["State of Decay (TV story)"], COMIC: Blood Invocation ^[+]Loading...["Blood Invocation (comic story)"], PROSE: Goth Opera ^[+]Loading...["Goth Opera (novel)"], et al.)"

These are genuinely different use cases! We might use one somewhat more frequently than the other in practice, but Nate's OP, having gotten this far, entirely fails to make a case for why this should be considered an unacceptable "hodgepodge" as opposed to two different kinds of citations which each have their rightful use-cases. We shouldn't ban "etc." any more than we should keep "et al." verboten; T:CITE will be uploaded to outline that each has its own whens and when-nots, codifying the intuitive rules which most of the editing base is already following.

(The idea of linking to appearances section and whatnot instead of either etc. or et al. is, it should go without saying, rejected with prejudice. I respect the out-of-the-box thinking, but this is miles away from common practice and would break up sentence flow something awful.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)