Misplaced Pages

Talk:GoRuck: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:21, 16 December 2018 editBarrelProof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers106,827 edits Undid revision 873869756 by Bradv (talk) This does not appear warranted, based on the identified remarks and the subsequent conversation at User talk:Hasteur#Relationship to GoRuck.Tag: Undo← Previous edit Revision as of 20:29, 16 December 2018 edit undoBarrelProof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers106,827 edits →Requested move 13 December 2018: Note regarding potential COINext edit →
Line 23: Line 23:
**"Glad to see ]] winning the day. ] (]) 00:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC) **"Glad to see ]] winning the day. ] (]) 00:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
***Are you saying you think ] and ] do not apply here, such as the recommendation to "''avoid:'' {{!xt|''TIME''}}, {{!xt|KISS}}, {{!xt|ASUS}}, {{!xt|SONY Mobile}}" and the recommendation to "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks"? To me, that doesn't seem like a mere ] argument. Incidentally, do you have a ] for this article? —] (]) 04:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC) ***Are you saying you think ] and ] do not apply here, such as the recommendation to "''avoid:'' {{!xt|''TIME''}}, {{!xt|KISS}}, {{!xt|ASUS}}, {{!xt|SONY Mobile}}" and the recommendation to "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks"? To me, that doesn't seem like a mere ] argument. Incidentally, do you have a ] for this article? —] (]) 04:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
****] noted on the article Talk page that a potential conflict of interest issue had been . However, further discussion with ] has since that this does not seem to be a serious matter. —] (]) 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The manual of style is crystal-clear here. ]: {{tq|Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"}} and {{tq|When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.}} Sources use GORUCK (the "official" stylisation) and GoRuck. Of the two, GoRuck is clearly closer to standard English, as neither "go" nor "ruck" are initialisms/acronyms. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. The manual of style is crystal-clear here. ]: {{tq|Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"}} and {{tq|When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.}} Sources use GORUCK (the "official" stylisation) and GoRuck. Of the two, GoRuck is clearly closer to standard English, as neither "go" nor "ruck" are initialisms/acronyms. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If we're following standard English and not nonstandard formatting, then the "R" shouldn't be in uppercase. Per ], {{tq|trademarks in "CamelCase" ... may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable}} but it's apparent that "GoRuck" isn't in general usage. *'''Comment''': If we're following standard English and not nonstandard formatting, then the "R" shouldn't be in uppercase. Per ], {{tq|trademarks in "CamelCase" ... may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable}} but it's apparent that "GoRuck" isn't in general usage.

Revision as of 20:29, 16 December 2018

WikiProject iconCompanies Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArticles for creation C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article was accepted from this draft on 13 December 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Assessment of the article

If User:Hasteur thinks this is good to go I'm going with his assessment. Looks ok to me Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

POV

I've done some editing but this is still basically regurgitating the company's marketing material. For example, somebody dying at one of their events is mentioned only as background to the company improving its safety policy! – Joe (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I do accept that this is somewhat promotional, but it is not overly self serving or using puffery language therefore I contest the scarlet letter of this banner. People writing about their experience at events is independent coverage. Much like people repiorting about MudRun/SpartanRace/etc. Hasteur (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
If you accept that the article is promotional, then it deserves a banner saying so. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I did a substantial amount of editing of the article since making that comment. I think it has less of an advertisement tone to it now (and I specifically cleaned up the passing mention of someone dying after being hit by a car during one of the company's events). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2018

It has been proposed in this section that GoRuck be renamed and moved to GORUCK.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

GoRuck → GORUCK – justification MOS:TMRULES is not valid. Specifically Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one It is clear that both officially and unoffically the preferred stylization is GORUCK in all capitalis. Furthermore WP:RMUM is not valid because Joe Roe should have known that It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. because I had recently moved the page to the capitalized version citing specific policies. For this Reason I specifically ask that the Move be reverted and a proper discussion for the appropriate title be restored. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If you have to provide all that opinionated commentary to justify it, you can't call it uncontroversial. It also appears that "RUCK" is short for "rucksack", so it is not an initialism. The article was at "GoRuck" at the point when its submission was accepted. The revision history shows there is a lack of agreement over the title, so it is obviously not uncontroversial. Incidentally, do you have a conflict of interest for that article? I see that it is nominated for deletion and tagged for having a non-neutral point of view that favors the company and that you created it. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS – the suggested form is a vanity all-caps styling. Two of the best sources cited in the article (this article in Time magazine and this article in The Daily Collegian) use "GoRuck" – most of the other cited sources are low-quality sources or the company itself. The company says its name is a concatenation of the word "Go" and the word "Ruck" (as in "rucksacking", i.e., activities that use a rucksack, which is the company's primary product). It is much more natural and less promotional to use the typical corporate camelcase form (GoRuck) than all-caps. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The manual of style is crystal-clear here. MOS:TM: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" and When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Sources use GORUCK (the "official" stylisation) and GoRuck. Of the two, GoRuck is clearly closer to standard English, as neither "go" nor "ruck" are initialisms/acronyms. – Joe (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we're following standard English and not nonstandard formatting, then the "R" shouldn't be in uppercase. Per MOS:TM, trademarks in "CamelCase" ... may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable but it's apparent that "GoRuck" isn't in general usage.
  • Oppose Nom's rationale is utterly wrong in every regard. I don't think I've ever seen anyone read MOS:TMRULE and come away with the exact opposite of its meaning before. See also WP:OFFICIALNAME, MOS:CAPS, MOS:ACRO, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. This is not an acronym, it's SCREAM IN YOUR FACE MARKETING, and WP's job is being an encyclopedia, not an advertising channel. If Sony and

Quality of sources

After seeing some detailed comments about the quality of the cited sources that were provided by another editor in the deletion discussion, I put some hidden comments about source quality into the article. I haven't noticed anyone disputing the validity of those comments, and I think it is helpful to have them within the article so they are kept together with the citations themselves. Another editor just removed those comments and suggested that they be discussed here on the Talk page, so I am starting that conversation here. To see specifically what I'm talking about, please see this diff, which shows the removal of the comments. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. These comments were useful and the reason given for removing them is incoherent: it's not "Misplaced Pages's voice" if readers can't see it and evaluating the quality of sources isn't editorialising, it's our main job. – Joe (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Categories: