Wikipedia:Wikipedisms

Wikipedisms are edits that cause one to "groan". While not generally disruptive, and almost always made in good faith, they tend to be mildly tedious, slightly silly, oddly phrased, or some combination of all. They often involve taking Wikipedia policies somewhat too seriously, creating a mildly, though unintentionally amusing effect. Examples include slightly excessive use of WP:Tagging, or common article conventions used in writing throughout the digital encyclopedia.

Wikipedisms are not malicious, and do not violate policies or guidelines, but rather tend to be cliché or awkward. The purpose of this essay is not strongly criticize, but to draw attention, with humor, to awkward phrasings and conventions that might be edited over time to produce fresher, more original, and hopefully more professional encyclopedic content.

Mildly unnecessary tagging
Commentary: The citation tag at the very end certainly meets all the criteria of WP:Cite; yet the phrase it tags "This bridge is a popular site..." is a trivial piece of filler. While a citation might strengthen both the phrase, and the stub article over all, the mere tag "citation needed" does not communicate this; it instead causes the reader to groan as the tag is not particularly necessary. The "citation needed" tag is redundant to the "WP:Stub" template placed in the page, which is a general statement that the article could be expanded and improved.

A fresher approach might be to be WP:Bold and the delete the filler line to create a more polished final article, rather cluttering the article with the tag. The line might also be kept, untagged, providing a bit of informal commentary from a local editor, even if such a line might be prohibited by a strict reading of WP:Original Research. The tag makes the otherwise unoffensive article appear to be in a perpetual state of maintenance. The goal is to create quality final content, even when an article is likely destined to remain a "stub".

Commentary: The citation needed for the line ''"...In old country, television watches you!" "'' is perhaps a pet peeve of mine. The article does include an incomplete in text citation for the joke that is tagged.  Here the joke is an example of the type told on the 1960s program "Laugh-In".  While the specific episode might be nice for a more complete reference, the article is of such overall low quality that tagging this line just looks messy.  Deferring to the "  " template at the top of the article, might produce a cleaner article.  The lack of a complete citation might still be noted on the talk page perhaps.

However, the second citation needed template, "...Yakov Smirnoff, although he only rarely used Russian reversals.", is perfectly appropriate, as the there no hint or context as to where this fact came from. Providing a source that could verify this factual claim would likely strengthen the article greatly. It should be noted, however, that a quick look at the other sources showed that article written by Liberman covered the material in the paragraph. Checking other sources first can help cut down on unnecessary tagging.

The goal is to use tags sparingly, in a manner that promotes quality over clutter.

Icky portmanteaus
Commentary: A common Wikipedism is the uncritical use of neologisms and/or portmanteaus, which are rarely part of standard English, and thus opaque to the average reader. In the "stagflation" article above, the word is defined, but the article then discusses in great detail several economic theories that were never formally defined as staglaflation. At best, "stagflation" is technical WP:JARGON within the field of economics; at worst and empty buzzword used briefly in the 1970s. A more complete approach might be to include a section discussing the use and evolution of the word to help assert its continued notability.

In the referring example from the Capitalism article, stagflation is dropped in the sentence with little syntactical context to define the word. It is not clear why the postwar boom ended, or what "stagflation" did to worsen the situation. A clearer approach might be to describe economic situation in standard English, describing the late 60s as a period of high inflation and low economic/employment growth (of course, any such edits must conform the content of any cited WP:Reliable Sources)