Category:Articles with peacock terms: Difference between revisions

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[Wikipedia]] articles, try to avoid '''Peacock Terms''' that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information.
Some terms to watch for:
* "an important..."
* "one of the most important..."
* "one of the best..."
* "the most influential..."
* "a significant..."
* "intriguingly..."
* "indisputable..."
These terms do not help establish the importance of an article.  Let the facts speak for themselves. If the [[ice hockey]] player, [[Canton (subnational entity)|canton]], or species of [[beetle]] is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing.
{{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}}
== Examples ==
Consider the following two examples. Which do you think makes for more interesting reading?
:'''''William Peckenridge,''''' ''eighth '''Duke of Omnium''' ([[1642]]? - [[May 8]], [[1691]]) is considered, by some people, to be the most important man ever to carry that title.''
:'''''William Peckenridge,''''' ''eighth '''Duke of Omnium''' ([[1642]]? - [[May 8]], [[1691]]) was personal counselor to [[James I|King James I]], general in the [[Wars of the Roses]], a [[chemist]], [[bandleader]], and the director of the secret society known as [[The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen]]. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revocation for civil-service appointments in [[India]].''
The first example simply ''tells'' the reader that William Peckenridge was important. The second example ''shows'' the reader that he was important. [[WP:Verify|Show]]; don't [[WP:NOR|tell]].
== You don't have to be the best to be notable ==
Even relatively '''un'''important subjects can still be notable, though perhaps for the wrong reasons: the discredited scientists, the vice presidents, the [[character actor|character actors]], the backwater cities, the extinct species. Not everything is the best, the most important, or the most influential. There's something to be said for ugly ducklings, too.
A general guide of what is appropriate to include in Wikipedia is accessible at [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and at [[Wikipedia:Importance]].
== Inappropriate subjects ==
On the converse side, if you are trying to dress up something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia—your band, your Web site, your company's product—think twice about it. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not]] an advertising medium or home page service. Wikipedians are pretty clever, and if an article is really just personal gratification or blatant advertising, it's not going to last long—no matter how "important" you say the subject is.
== See also ==
== See also ==
*[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
*[[Avoid peacock terms]]
*[[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles]]

Revision as of 19:31, 6 May 2006

See also

This category currently contains no pages or media.

Retrieved from "https://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_peacock_terms&oldid=69794"