![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 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)
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)
I'm not sure what AfD that means, please explain [1]. Based on context, I'm sure it's not Active Format Description [2]. Thank You -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps writers of these essays can combine efforts. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#WP:PUFFERY. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The shortcut
WP:PUFFERY
currently redirects to this essay; I suggest redirecting it to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Puffery
. This question was raised previously on the Words to watch talk page – see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3 § WP:PUFFERY
– 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 [[WP:PUFFERY]]
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)
WP:PEACOCKwas already in wide usage on Wikipedia by the time this essay and the shortcut
WP:PUFFERYwere 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.
and also Media Literacy: Thinking Critically about Advertising (p. 6):Puffery occurs when advertisers make exaggerated claims about their products: "It's a mind-blowing experience!" or "It'll make you orgasm!"
And from The Wall Street Journal:Many advertisements rely on what is known as puffery, making a claim that sounds good but cannot really be evaluated. For example, if an automobile manufacturer tells you that its new car is "the hottest buy in America," [...]
Mr. Trump knows that an executive who assumes leadership of a financially troubled organization should not trust such puffery from the outgoing management.
WP:PUFFERYis 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)
WP:PEACOCK. My point is that if the latter is useful as a shortcut to the Words to Watch section, then
WP:PUFFERYis even more so. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 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)
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)
I'm not sure what AfD that means, please explain [1]. Based on context, I'm sure it's not Active Format Description [2]. Thank You -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps writers of these essays can combine efforts. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#WP:PUFFERY. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The shortcut
WP:PUFFERY
currently redirects to this essay; I suggest redirecting it to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Puffery
. This question was raised previously on the Words to watch talk page – see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3 § WP:PUFFERY
– 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 [[WP:PUFFERY]]
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)
WP:PEACOCKwas already in wide usage on Wikipedia by the time this essay and the shortcut
WP:PUFFERYwere 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.
and also Media Literacy: Thinking Critically about Advertising (p. 6):Puffery occurs when advertisers make exaggerated claims about their products: "It's a mind-blowing experience!" or "It'll make you orgasm!"
And from The Wall Street Journal:Many advertisements rely on what is known as puffery, making a claim that sounds good but cannot really be evaluated. For example, if an automobile manufacturer tells you that its new car is "the hottest buy in America," [...]
Mr. Trump knows that an executive who assumes leadership of a financially troubled organization should not trust such puffery from the outgoing management.
WP:PUFFERYis 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)
WP:PEACOCK. My point is that if the latter is useful as a shortcut to the Words to Watch section, then
WP:PUFFERYis even more so. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)