Wikivisual:Avoid peacock terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Words to avoid. (Discuss)

This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

Shortcut: WP:PEACOCK WP:APT WP:PCK

In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information.

Some terms to watch for:

"an important..."
"one of the most important..."
"one of the best..."
"the most influential..."
"a significant..."
"intriguingly"
"indisputable"
"iconic"
"canonical"
"classic"
"well known"
"eminent"
"talented"
"legendary"

These terms do not help establish the importance of an article. Let the facts speak for themselves. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing.

1 Examples
2 You don't have to be the best to be notable
3 Don't hide the important facts
4 Inappropriate subjects
5 See also

[edit] Examples

Consider the following two examples. Which do you think makes for more interesting reading?

William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) is considered, by some people, to be the most important man ever to carry that title.

William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) was personal counselor to King Charles I, royalist general in the English Civil War, a chemist, poet, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded his family's possessions to include the proprietorship of the Province of New Hampshire and the hereditary Lord High Bailiffship of Guernsey and Sark.

The first example simply tells the reader that the Duke of Omnium was important. The second example shows the reader how he was important. Show; don't tell.

[edit] You don't have to be the best to be notable

Even relatively unimportant subjects can still be notable, though perhaps for the wrong reasons: the discredited scientists, the vice presidents, the character actors, the backwater cities. Not everything is the best, the most important, or the most influential. There's something to be said for ugly ducklings, too.

A general guide of what is appropriate to include in Wikipedia is accessible at Wikipedia:Notability.

[edit] Don't hide the important facts

The opposite fallacy is to disparage the importance of a topic. Thus: "The Pacific Ocean is one of the largest oceans," "World War II was among the most important wars of the century." Peacock terms can be avoided when dealing with the third longest river in Rhode Island. But when it comes to the Amazon River, Wikipedia readers should be told just how big it really is. When a person or event is in fact important the reader must be told that: tell them how important and why.

[edit] Inappropriate subjects

On the converse side, if you are trying to dress up something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia—your band, your Web site, your company's product—think twice about it. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium or home page service. Wikipedians are pretty clever, and if an article is really just personal gratification or blatant advertising, it's not going to last long—no matter how "important" you say the subject is.