User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikish

Wikish is an English dialect that has developed on Wikipedia.

Wikish is an aggregation of standard English words and phrases used in non-standard ways. Some elements of Wikish are the result of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Others are from editors copying what they have seen in other articles into whatever they are writing.

"Over", "nearly", etc.
Fans of a particular work (film, TV show, etc.) tend to want to present the work as being successful. As a result, a theatrical gross presented elsewhere in an article rounded to the largest significant digit may be truncated and inflated. While the infobox may report a gross of $79.1 million, the prose may report "over $79 million". The former version is neutral and shorter, compared to the latter.

"Only", "less than", etc.
Presenting a work as less successful is often accomplished by pushing down neutral figures. The prose version of $79.1 million may become "less than $80 million" or "under $80 million".

Conflicted comparisons
Editors who feel there is an inappropriate response to a work (bad reviews for a film they liked, lower sales than they hoped for) may connect two results in a way to imply a conflict between the two that is not supported by any source. Constructions like "Despite excellent reviews, the film was only a modest success at the box office" assume there is always a link between the two when, historically, the connection is often weak to nonexistent.

Evaluations of data
While Wikipedia's policies explicitly prohibit crafting new ideas out of multiple sources, some editors believe that style guidelines calling for "summaries" require them. Policies, however, supersede guidelines and summaries are not necessarily a combination of elements. (A plot summary, for example, generally comes from one source.)

Reading multiple reviews and saying reviews were positive, negative, mostly positive, mixed or anything else is [WP:SYN|synthesis]]. If an article needs a statement summarizing the critical response, editors will need to find a reliably sourced statement and cite it accordingly. If a reliable review aggregator provides a summary statement, quoting that statement with in-line attribution provides the desired information without synthesis.

Rewording a summary presented by a reliable source (e.g., "mostly positive" to "favorable") is both redundant and inaccurate. If the article gives the statement from a reliable source, there is no reason to say it again. If the wording used by the source is vague, an editor's "clarification" is nothing more than their POV.

"Commercial success", "critical failure" and similar phrases combine multiple problems. In addition to inserting an editor's POV as fact and likely synthesis, they assume intent. Perhaps a film had a low box office gross because it was intended to make money on streaming video (receiving little theatrical attention). Maybe the song's release was merely to generate attention for a tour, making Top 40 airplay an afterthought at most. Maybe it was a failure. Without a reliable source presenting the opinion, though, Wikipedia has nothing to say.

Announcements
If an artist announces the name of their forthcoming album, a common Wikish formulation is "On April 16, 2018, an article on musicgenius.com revealed that Jane Doe's new album will be titled 'I'm a Genius, Aren't I' and will release on September 1."

The word "revealed" is overused throughout Wikipedia. The word carries the connotation of secret information and a "revelation". An album title, release date or similar information is seldom a meaningful secret. The company, artist, etc. simply announced it.

Albums, films and other works are not living things. They do not "release", "overpower" or do anything else of their own accord. Works are released by companies and artists.

Yes, the work might be scheduled for release on a particular date, but the world is a complicated place. Writer's block, illnesses, world events and various other factors may alter a planned timeline or scuttle a project altogether. Wikipedia's wording should reflect the uncertainty of planned events.

In the Jane Doe example, the date, location and actor are all irrelevant. Unless there is some verifiable dispute as to who said what or when, the only relevant fact is the name of the album. The rest fits very nicely into the inline citation. "Doe's forthcoming album, 'I'm a Genius, Aren't I', is scheduled for release on September 1, 2018."

"Notable"
An artifact of Wikipedia's notability, list selection criteria, song cover and assorted other policies, guidelines, Wikiprojects, etc. is the overuse of the word "notable".

While Wikipedia has a very specific and carefully worded meaning for the word that is useful for editors, that meaning is quite different in the real world. Something might be "notable" in various contexts without meeting Wikipedia's criteria. It is often best to avoid the word, using synonyms when not referring to Wikipedia's use and spelling it out when Wikipedia's meaning is intended. "Doe was notable well known for..." or "This is a list of notable fubars with articles on the English Wikipedia."

Slang/euphemisms
"Beef" is meat obtained from a cow. It is not a disagreement/publicity stunt between two rappers.

Nothing is "based off of" anything. Much as a building is based on a foundation, one work might be "based on" another (or "inspired by", "influenced by", "refer to", etc.).

People do not "make love". They are not constructing an emotion. They have sex.

People do not "pass", "pass away", "pass on" or otherwise leave their life to transition to some other form of existence (other than as a dead body and memories) to some other form proposed by your religious beliefs. People "die".

"Unknown"
Some things are unknown. These are generally big questions in the world that are subject to much debate, argument and, sometimes, wars. Is there life after death? Will the universe ever cease to exist? What kind of sandwich did Princip buy at Schiller's delicatessen on that fateful day?

Other things are known by a limited number of people (whether a show has been renewed, Tom Cruise's Social Security number, etc.), are subject to future consideration (will that character ever show up in the bar again?), etc.

Still other things may have been announced in one form or another, but the individual Wikipedia editor missed it. Perhaps it wasn't announced. What an individual editor does not know is irrelevant. While an editor might think there has been no further word on a project since 2005, they may have missed something.

"To date", "currently", "holds", etc.
Facts change. Editors may intend to update an article or section regularly in the future or assume others will. Inevitably, some outdated material remains in articles for years.

Information changes. More reviews are added. Cases go to trial. When an editor adds that no one has been charged "to date" or that a film "holds" a certain score, it is (hopefully) true at that moment. A day, month, or several years later, the article might still say that, though it is no longer true.

, the as of template is the best was to handle information which should be regularly updated.