This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:APT WP:SUPER WP:PCK WP:PEA WP:PEACOCK

This page in a nutshell: Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance.

In Wikipedia articles, forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main", or "among the greatest" in their field, without explaining why. When using these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded.

Contents 1 Examples 1.1 Words and phrases to watch for 2 Do not hide the important facts 3 Inappropriate subjects 4 Don't peacock your facts 5 Exception for quotations 6 Tagging articles that have peacock terms 7 See also 8 Notes

[edit] Examples

Consider the following examples.

Peacock term:

• William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602 – May 8, 1671) is the most important man ever to carry that title.

Better:

• 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, without directly saying so. Show, don't tell.

Peacock term:

• Brazil has a vigorous economy.

Better:

• According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth-largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP).^[1][2]

The first example simply tells the reader that the Brazilian economy is vigorous. The second example shows the reader that it is. Show, don't tell by asserting facts, not opinions, and substantiating facts about opinions.

[edit] Words and phrases to watch for

Deciding whether a particular wording is suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment. The following is a list of words that are often misused. Inclusion in this list does not mean a word should always be avoided, but rather that it must be used appropriately. Note that it is OK to use these words in direct quotations.

acclaimed amazing astonishing authoritative award‑winning awesome beautiful best brilliant canonical charismatic classic defining and definitive eminent enigma epic esteemed excellent exciting extraordinary fabulous famous and infamous fantastic freedom fighter fully genius global greatest gruelling iconic

immensely impactful important impressive incendiary indisputable influential innovative inspirational inspired interesting intriguing leader leading legendary major masterly mature memorable notable noted outstanding passionate picturesque pioneer popular premium prestigious primary really good

remarkable renowned respected select(ed) seminal significant skillful solutions single-handedly staunch successful superior superlative talented the most thriving top transcendent trusted undoubtedly unique virtually virtuoso visionary well-educated well-established well-known well-regarded world-class world-renowned world-famous

[edit] Do not hide the important facts

This does not mean one should underplay the legitimate importance of a topic. It is appropriate to write "The Pacific Ocean is Earth's largest ocean" and "World War II was among the most important wars of world history". 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 long it really is. When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be shown how important, and why.

In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute original research or synthesis). A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph.

[edit] Inappropriate subjects

Conversely, if you are trying to dress up something that does not belong in Wikipedia—your non-notable band, Web site, or company's product—think twice about it. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium or home page service. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedians are experienced in recognizing inappropriate pages, and if an article is for personal promotion or blatant advertising, it will be speedily deleted or subjected to the articles for deletion or proposed deletion processes.

[edit] Don't peacock your facts

Avoid drumming up interest in facts or trivia by tagging them with editorial remarks. For example, it is generally unhelpful to prefix a fact or development with comments like “interestingly”, “ironically”, “surprisingly”, "the researchers were shocked to find", “it should be noted”, and the like. Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what is interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy.

[edit] Exception for quotations

Do not impose Wikipedia style guidelines on sources that are cited or quoted. It is proper to say, "Music critic Ann Bond wrote that Mozart was a great composer," or "Smith said, 'Senator Jones's acceptance of this contribution is a major scandal.'" Such indirect or direct quotations may be useful in presenting important perspectives, especially on contentious subjects, or in summarizing a widely held view.

[edit] Tagging articles that have peacock terms

If you find an article making use of peacock terms, and you do not want to fix it yourself, or are not sure how to fix it, you can add the template {{peacock}} to the beginning of the article, an article section, or an article's talk page to call other editors' attention to the article. You may also add {{Peacock term}} to specific phrases within the article.
For example: "John Smith is the greatest^{[peacock term]} and most influential^{[peacock term]} man who ever lived."

[edit] See also

• Template:Peacock
• Template:Peacock term
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Wikipuffery

[edit] Notes