Wikipedia talk:Wikipuffery/Archive 1

Puffery
I guess a term was needed for this. As I usually call it larding, I would have liked wikilard, but the important thing is it has a name now. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added WP:LARD as a redirect; I like your term also. THF (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have used "puff" a number of times when removing clearly POV material promoting a person or organization. It can be amusing whwn the actual person has been convicted of money laundering or the like, and the puffers delete that material. Collect (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Antiwikipuffery
I restored the moved comments which were moved 7 minutes after I prepared for this page to be elected for MfD. The admin who closed this MfD snowball keep after only 2 hours 55 minutes, nominated Antipuffery for deletion, and made improvements to this article. I think there needs to be balance in this article. I welcome more user comments about this moved content. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery agrees that that version of the paragraph does not belong in the article -- did you even notice that there was a compromise edit in place? Or that your edit munged the table of contents and made the essay incoherent?  And given the fit you threw over WP:ANI denying that you were adding the material in, it is appalling that you would disregard the consensus to add the material in. THF (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say no one cares, but very few people care. You might want to cool down a little. If you simply must expend your prodigious energies, this essay is a waste of time since it will be read by very few editors, and your efforts to neutralize it will not advance your campaign to have WP:NOTE deleted and WP:PRESERVE elevated to pillar policy. Thank you for soliciting feedback. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest we both take Edgarde advice and cool down a little.
 * I am sorry, what does that skewed last sentence have to do with this essay? Ikip (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that THF moved/refactored Edgardes comments from below his, to above. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? Edgarde was talking to you. I support WP:NOTE and you were the one who made a frivolous MfD request. THF (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (For clarity's sake, I'm moving my comment back back to threaded hierarchy. I was having trouble figuring out whom Ikip was addressing in his pre-refactor reply. Per Talk page guidelines, try not to re-factor other editors' comments, especially if it might change their meaning&mdash;doing so tends to introduce unintended confusion, and often irks editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Ikip: thanks for replying. My suggestions are my own, without strict adherence to protocol. I anticipate you will assume the freedom to either take my advice or ignore it. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Seems unnecessary
I question the suitability including this theoretical permutation: "Conversely, but far less regularly, the opposite effect, antipuffery, may occur. This is normally manifested in removing relevant and encyclopedic information and/or its main factor of notability." I don't think I have seen this used as a tactic to diminish an article's notability, and I doubt this is "normally manifested" so; anyway it would be covered under vandalism. Besides, anti-puffery would be removing puffery, trivial items purported to be important.

I think this just adds needless complexity, diluting the message. Can it be removed? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD?
I'm not sure what AfD that means, please explain. Based on context, I'm sure it's not Active Format Description. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same section, what is MfD is it: Miscellany for deletion? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that gave me a clue AfD, might be WP:AfD or Articles for deletion, if that is true please wikilink here for clarity. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar essays
Perhaps writers of these essays can combine efforts. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bombardment – placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted.
 * Wikipuffery – exaggerating the notability of article subjects to avoid deletion of the article
 * User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver – adding inconsequential sources to win a deletion discussion


 * This may sound cruel to the people who have worked so diligently on this policy. All policies are tough to construct and maintain. But I thought that the link "WP:PUFF" would better direct to WP:WTW which seems to contain a more comprehensive list of puffery words, with this policy being a fork of that one. Just my opinion. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUFFERY
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion is now archived. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That discussion is now archived. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:PUFFERY
The shortcut WP:PUFFERY currently redirects to this essay; I suggest redirecting it to. This question was raised previously on the Words to watch talk page – see – but I think it's worth discussing again.

It seems logical to have the name of a shortcut match the name of the section it redirects to. It's also useful to be able to put  in edit summaries when referencing the Words to watch section; conversely, this essay seems much less likely to be referenced in that way. WP:PUFF and WP:Wikipuffery are both existing shortcuts to this essay when needed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was noted in the previous discussion that WP:PEACOCK was already in wide usage on Wikipedia by the time this essay and the shortcut WP:PUFFERY were created, and that the Manual of Style section titled "Puffery" came later. However, new editors join Wikipedia as time goes on, and what was once 'in wide usage' on the site may no longer make sense.
 * Puffery (at least in North America) generally means "undue or exaggerated praise", which is the topic of the relevant part of the Manual of Style. See for instance The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics (p.228): and also Media Literacy: Thinking Critically about Advertising (p. 6):  And from The Wall Street Journal:
 * Peacock in its metaphorical sense, usually refers to "a vain, self-conscious person" rather than undue praise. For all these reasons, I think WP:PUFFERY is a more useful shortcut for the Manual of Style section on positively loaded words than is WP:PEACOCK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Puffery (at least in North America) generally means "undue or exaggerated praise", which is the topic of the relevant part of the Manual of Style. See for instance The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics (p.228): and also Media Literacy: Thinking Critically about Advertising (p. 6):  And from The Wall Street Journal:
 * Peacock in its metaphorical sense, usually refers to "a vain, self-conscious person" rather than undue praise. For all these reasons, I think WP:PUFFERY is a more useful shortcut for the Manual of Style section on positively loaded words than is WP:PEACOCK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Peacock in its metaphorical sense, usually refers to "a vain, self-conscious person" rather than undue praise. For all these reasons, I think WP:PUFFERY is a more useful shortcut for the Manual of Style section on positively loaded words than is WP:PEACOCK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with the redirect, but I am still likely to use "WP:PEACOCK" at times for the section because the section is also about peacock words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To be clearer, I think we should keep the "WP:PEACOCK" shortcut as well since it is still in such wide use, sort of like we've kept the "WP:COMMONNAME" shortcut because of its widespread use instead of completely abandoning it for its other shortcuts. (And, yes, whether or not we should keep the WP:COMMONNAME shortcut was debated.) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not suggesting getting rid of WP:PEACOCK. My point is that if the latter is useful as a shortcut to the Words to Watch section, then WP:PUFFERY is even more so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not suggesting getting rid of WP:PEACOCK. My point is that if the latter is useful as a shortcut to the Words to Watch section, then WP:PUFFERY is even more so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I know; I just wanted to address the WP:PEACOCK redirect for the record. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely leave the WP:PEACOCK guideline shortcut as-is. I have no objection to WP:PUFFERY being usurped to point to the same place, especially since this essay is redundant with that guideline, and "Puffery" is the actual title of the guideline section, so people who will naturally read the guideline more than this essay are likely to expect it to go there.  I also agree that the problem addressed by the guideline is puffery (of subjects by editors) not peacock behavior (by the subjects themselves).  The original usage of PEACOCK arose to refer primarily to WP:COI cases where both were happening simultaneously, but the guideline is really about the general case, and we already have COI policy to address the more specific one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I made the change here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I made the change here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)