Template talk:Puffery

Is this needed?
This template seems to be a combination of Template:Citecheck, Template:Notability and Template:Peacock. Do we need special treatment for puffery? I'll acknowledge the issue of puffery is real, but it's a subset (or symptom) of greater problems, mostly with WP:V or WP:NOTE, either of which merit discussion (and potentially deletion). Peacock (where WP:V or WP:NOTE are not problems) is a style fix that need not be tagged with new templates suggesting complex implications.

Also, the template may present WP:AGF problems since the term wikipuffery describes edits made with the intent of deliberately overstating notability or misrepresenting sources. This intent will seldom be admitted or unambiguous.

I just don't think a puffery-specific template is helpful where better, less ambiguous, good-faith templates (namely Citecheck, Notability, Peacock) already exist. Would the creator of this essay consider putting a Db-g7 on this one? I recommend this because a WP:TFD on this template might impair acceptance of the Wikipuffery essay. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I might be willing to G7 it. Let's discuss, and see if one of us can persuade the other.


 * I disagree strongly on the alleged WP:AGF violation, since the wikipuffery essay explicitly acknowledges that the problem can happen in good faith.


 * I also think that puffery describes a different problem than peacock, citecheck, and notability.


 * Peacock violates NPOV. All peacock is puffery, but not all puffery is peacock.  Some puffery is perfectly neutral, but it's still puffery.
 * There are occasions when puffery will overlap with citecheck because the puffery is the exaggeration of the cites rather than the exaggeration of the facts, but there will be other occasions where the puffery is simply the inclusion of non-notable facts.
 * Puffery includes the inclusion of non-notable factual chaff to beef up an article ("John Smith was once interviewed on the Diane Rehm Show"), but it can as easily happen in an article where WP:N is otherwise met as not, so it doesn't quite overlap with the notability tag.   THF (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Change to simply "through exaggeration" and other
Hi

I have changed the template to:

This article may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration. Greatest, best, brilliant, wonderful, talented, perfect etc. should be avoided eg. "the greatest game" or "a wonderful singer". Please remove or replace such wording.

The reasons are that the template was basically incorrect.

Peacocking tag states: "may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information."

Weasel tag states: "contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."

Puffery is about words that inflate the subject's importance, skills or qualifications and is not dependant on noteworthy. The singer may be in the top 10 and it may be verified, but the phrase "a wonderful singer in the worlds top 10" should still be avoided

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)