User:Escape Orbit/List Of Words

This list is of words and phrases that must be hunted down and destroyed everywhere they occur in Wikipedia.

Ok, not everywhere, but in most places. Their use almost always flags content that either shouldn't be in Wikipedia, or needs care and attention.

Tabloid Words
A lot of people's only exposure to factual writing is in tabloids. Therefore they think that when they're adding current news to Wikipedia, it should sound like a tabloid. This is why many contributions from editors use these words. Leaving aside the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, much of the language used in tabloids is sensationalist and un-encyclopaedic.

Exclusive
Pity the poor word "exclusive". It used to mean something. It used to mean that what you were getting in one place, could not be sourced from another. It was to be found in one place only, to the exclusion of all others. Now it means absolutely nothing.

'Exclusive' has been taken to its extreme, so that every instance of everything is exclusive in its own right. Like that word there, a sentence back. "instance". I'm bringing you that word exclusively, you won't find it appearing in the same context anywhere on a similar page in Wikipedia. I have an exclusive on all uses of that word on this page, which is in itself an exclusive. No-one else has this page. What's more, the news that this is an exclusive is something I am exclusively revealing here and now. You won't find me mentioning it any place else. So there you go, it's exclusive once, twice, three times over! Doesn't that make it something special?

That, of course, is the point of anyone using the word now. It's a way of flagging something is extra special, but in a way that tells you absolutely nothing about what makes it special, and without having to actually justify why it is special. It is the ultimate, totally vacuous, weasel word.

Revealed
When you reveal something it must mean that previously you've been keeping the information to yourself. It was secret, possibly even a personal secret. You don't get more special than that. And now it will be shared! Tabloids know that people love knowing secrets, and they know that people will pay to read about them. That's why they use the word 'reveal' all the time.

In tabloid world nothing is announced or plainly just said. It's revealed in an interview. This is why Wikipedia is full of articles where people reveal what their next recording is going to be. Or what they think of another person. Or what film they'll be in next. You know, mundane stuff that was never a deep hidden secret and could just be announced. But revealing it sounds that bit more exciting, doesn't it?

Banned
You only ban something if you take proactive steps to prevent it, particularly when it involves others. What you're doing is exercising some kind of authority to overrule others' wishes (no matter how ambivalent or unformed they may as yet be). That's what banning is.

What banning isn't is taking a decision to not do something, not purchase something, or not participate in something personally. You do not ban Pepsi, simply because you choose to drink Coke. You only ban Pepsi if someone you have authority over those who wish to drink it, and you tell them they may not.

Choosing not to do something happens all the time, it's mundane. Banning, however, is uncommon and more exciting. It suggests an element of conflict. Tabloids, therefore, much prefer the word, no matter whether any actual banning is taking place. But it has no place on Wikipedia unless writing about the exercising of authority.

Currently/Recently
Wikipedia already recommends these words are never used, because they tell the reader nothing about when they were written. So whatever it is saying may no longer be true. But tabloid newspapers like the words as it emphasises the freshness and urgency of what they are saying. So inevitably they'll keep appearing on Wikipedia.

Numerous
How many is "numerous"? It can't be defined, can it? It depends on what you are talking about, and your own opinion. What you think is numerous, I may think as a run of the mill "handful". So what is the reader to make of this word? Nothing, other than the person who wrote it would like to suggest "a lot", but either can't or won't put an exact number to it.

So it's just an opinion, peacocking, and in most cases can be removed without affecting anything the article is saying.

Official
Another word that is added to descriptions, but often adds nothing factual. Describing something as 'official', or doing something 'officially' is relevant if it is being used to distinguish it from being 'unofficial', or done 'unofficially'. Often this is not the case, and indeed it may be impossible for it to be unofficial, or done unofficially. When this is the case, what is the point to describing it as 'official'? It's a word that can be excised from the text with nothing lost and the words simply being used to peacock what is being said, to make it sound more impressive.

The opposite of the word, 'unofficial', is often merely an excuse to voice an opinion, i.e. "not really officially a fact but I'd like to suggest it as a fact".

It is also sometime used to grant an 'official' status to something bestowed by a body that has no authority to be described as 'official'. They may say this as part of their advertising, but Wikipedia is not obliged to repeat it.

Examples;
 * "John Smith is officially the lead of his film." Is there a way that John Smith could 'unofficially' be the lead?  Perhaps, but only if we were attempting to add the opinion that his supporting role out-shone the actually lead.   Otherwise, the word 'officially' adds nothing to this sentence.
 * "John Smith, unofficially the lead of the film, announced its release" - an attempt to sneak an opinion into the sentence.
 * "John Smith officially announced the release of his film." - Is there a way this could have been announced "unofficially"? Perhaps, but only if there was a need to distinguish this announcement from previous hints or rumours.  Otherwise the word adds nothing.
 * "John Smith, the official #1 hunk as voted by the readers of "Film Now", announced the release of his film." - "Film Now" doesn't have the authority to make him "officially" anything other than the winner of their own competition.

Avid
Almost solely used in conjunction with "fan". This is obviously an opinion, as it is suggesting a degree of "fanship" that cannot be measured. At what point does a "casual" fan become an "avid" fan? Is your idea of someone being an avid fan the same as the readers'? It's impossible to quantify.

What makes the use of this word all the worse is its almost default use when it comes to describing a fan. It's like there is no other way to describe someone being a fan, without them being "avid" about it. Someone mentions their favourite football team in an interview, and suddenly that makes them "avid".

"Keen" also serves the same purpose about things other than fandom, just not as frequently.

Example;
 * "Joe Bloggs is an avid Arsenal Football club supporter and attends games when he can." - Sounds a bit like a casual fan, but the editor wants you to know that they are really seriously about their support.

Beating about the bush
These are phrases that some editors add to articles, usually because they feel it makes it sound more officious or exact. But in most cases they are totally unneeded beating about the bush that avoid getting to the point.

is the name of
Articles in Wikipedia are usually about things, rather than words. It's an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. So articles that start with "Subject is the name of a something" can almost always be modified to more directly say "Subject is a something". The article is about the subject, not the name of the subject.

There are exceptions to this; when the article is about the word, or about a number of things that share a word, like in disambiguation articles.

Examples:
 * "Metropolis (Ancient Greek: Μητρόπολις) is the name of a classical city situated in western Turkey" - Removing "is the name of" re-focusses the article on the city, not it's name.
 * "Green Lantern is the name of several superheroes appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics." - This use is justified, because the article discusses more than one superhero who share the same name.

it was announced
What's more important about a fact? When/where the fact itself occurred, or when/where it was announced that it would occur? I would suggest it's the former. Yet you'll see in a multitude of articles facts being introduced by the all important detail about when it was announced and where the announcing happened. These may be important details in the time critical word of new-media, but in most cases they don't matter in the slightest after the fact. No-one cares, for instance, when a musician announced the release of their forth-coming recording in 2008, nor that they chose to do this on facebook. What is important is when the record itself was release.

The when and where are often details that are important to the cite, which could properly contain these details. But they are just distractions in the article itself that do not need to be there.

There are, as always, exceptions to this. In some cases the timing or location of the announcement is significant, in which case it should be explained why and the announcement itself takes on the importance of a fact to be included.

including many others
These are lists that are introduced as being just a selection of some of the whole, but then with ".. and many others" or words to that effect. If you're going to list something as an "including" sub-set, then you can't then expand it to the whole of the set, because then it's no longer a sub-set, is it?

The "many" is equally troubling as an opinion. By what measure did it become "many", as opposed to "some" or just "a few"? And then there are times when the "many" is just an attempt to fool the reader into thinking there's far more that could be said, when in fact there is simply nothing further to list, far less cite.

best known as
Often used on the lead of biographical articles. The thing about "best known as" is that it is almost always a guess and an opinion. There is almost never a cite provided to demonstrate that this is indeed how a person is best known. Apart from that, it is totally unnecessary beating about the bush. If the person was not known for doing it, it wouldn't be in the article. If it wasn't something that made them most notable, it shouldn't be in the lead. And the introduction of this phrase needlessly introduces into the picture an undefined third person who is doing the knowing. Who best knows them as this? The reader isn't told and may safely conclude, in the absence of any cite, that it is the Wikipedia editor who knows them best this way. Or at least is guessing that this is how others know them.

Far better to omit this unnecessary phrase, get to the point, and just say what the person has done that makes them most notable.

The phrase "well known as" is closely related to "best known as". But in this case it is simple peacocking. When does a person become "well known" as to just "known"? Other than in the editor's opinion?

What editors are attempting to do with this phrasing is, I think, demonstrating notability, something that Wikipedia insists on, by saying they are notable. However, demonstrating notability is done by stating what they do/are/did that makes them notable, so that other editors may assess it. A person may be known to an editor for any number of things, but that in itself does not mean they are notable because of it.

Sloppy Conjunction Words
Sloppy conjunction words are words stuck into the article because the contributing editor wishes to add something, but can't be bother integrating it into the article properly. So these words are used to just jam things in.

However
I call it "howeverism". "However" is misused to signal the introduction of a paragraph that largely contradicts the previous one. Rather than re-writing to integrate the information in a balanced manner, the editor just starts a new paragraph with "However, " and sails on without looking back. And that's even if the new information is valid and cited. More often than not the contributing editor simply want to have the last word because they personally disagreed with the previous paragraph.

Also
The agreeable brother to "However", but just as poorly used. "Also" should be used to indicate a connection, a continuation, of what has previously been written. But it gets misused simply to add new, unrelated facts. Starting every new paragraph or sentence is also unnecessary. By their very nature, articles tend to be a succession of facts about the subject. The reader already understands that the following is more about the same subject.

"Also" often introduces something that wasn't integrated into the article simply because it's pointless trivia that the editor couldn't find a place for within the rest of the article. And the reason they couldn't find a place is because it's unimportant trivia.

In addition
A fancier way of saying "also"