Talk:GoRuck

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation C‑class

	This 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 articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 December 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Hasteur (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=861380570&diff=prev)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you accept that the article is promotional, then it deserves a banner saying so. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus below. Kraose (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- "Glad to see WP:IDONTLIKEIT] winning the day. Hasteur (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying you think MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS do not apply here, such as the recommendation to "avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile" and the recommendation to "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks"? To me, that doesn't seem like a mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Incidentally, do you have a conflict of interest for this article? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bradv noted here on the article Talk page that a potential conflict of interest issue had been previously mentioned. However, further discussion with Hasteur has since clarified that this does not seem to be a serious matter. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
- Propose GoRuck → Goruck or Go Ruck. jamacfarlane (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there are any sources that use those forms. We're supposed to pick from the forms in use in independent sources, not "inventing a new one" (MOS:TM). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we don't just make stuff up. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But (per Google news search) most independent sources are using all caps "GORUCK" (2nd most popular is camelcase "GoRuck"). I don't support a move, but this would be an argument in favour of it. jamacfarlane (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to use the most common variant. We pick the one that is closest to standard English from the variants that appear in sources. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; WP:Common-style fallacy covers this in detail. In this particular case, news media with a strong tendency to mimic trademarks are doing exactly that, while those with no such habit are not doing it. If the RS are not overwhelmingly consistent in favoring a stylization (e.g. pretty much no one anywhere, ever, calls Deadmau5 "Deadmaus"), then WP has no rationale for doing it either, and many for not doing it. Here, the RS usage is mixed, so default to what MoS says to do. Same rule, always. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 Time (magazine) aren't at SONY and TIME (magazine), this certainly is not going to be at GORUCK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

I agree. These comments were useful and the reason given for removing them is incoherent: it's not "Wikipedia'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)[reply]

We do not editorialize in HTML comments. The only people this would help is editors. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text is quite clear and therefore prohibits your editorialization in "Wikipedia voice". Hasteur (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying that, although it doesn't seem especially clear as discouragement to me. It says that good uses of hidden text include "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" and "to remind editors not to add inappropriate links". But anyhow, the issue doesn't seem especially important if you have a continuing objection to it. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]