Red Hot Chili Peppers was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Red Hot Chili PeppersWikipedia:WikiProject Red Hot Chili PeppersTemplate:WikiProject Red Hot Chili PeppersRed Hot Chili Peppers articles
The abbreviated term "Chili Peppers" is very frequent in the text of this article, but without any explanation. When any non-expert reads it it is unnecessarily confusing - what "Chili Peppers" is that part of the group, another group, a sister group, what is it? I attempted to alleviate that problem, but was almost instantly reverted with a summary indicating that one should know the subject beforehand, that I do not know English well (have taught it for 50 years) and that abbreviation without explanation is elementary. I do not agree. We are here to inform readers clearly, not to format articles only for people who already know the subjects at hand. We also have a redirect from Chili peppers to the article Chili pepper, rendering the whole thing even more confusing. Will revert again
soon unless someone can come up with a better reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:STATUSQUO, please don't revert without consensus.
I'm skeptical that, realistically, readers will be confused about what "the Chili Peppers" refers to, and it seems of trivial importance to mention in the lead. As I said in my edit summary, I believe this is equivalent to writing "the Catholic Church" on first mention and then "the Church" afterwards. It doesn't require spelling out. Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That comparison is absurd. Church is a regular word, where as here we're dealing with jargon, lingo for the initiated, a pet term steeped in fondness and fandom. I would guess that over the years at least 10,000 readers, who do not know the group and jargon well, have used search and ended up at Chili pepper. Needs to be fixed, and the lead is the right place for an a.k.a., right up there with RHCP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's linguistically identical. "church" is a common noun, but is capitalized when used in the proper noun "Catholic Church". This becomes "Church" (still a proper noun) for short, as in "the Church". "chilli pepper" is a common noun, but is capitalized when used in the proper noun "Red Hot Chili Peppers". This becomes "Chili Peppers" (still a proper noun) for short, as in "the Chili Peppers".
I don't understand the search issue. Chili pepper is the right article to go to if you search for "chili pepper". There's a hatnote on that article to help people looking for the band. Popcornfud (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice if people read what others write on talk pages before replying. Big hint: Chili peppers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I still don't understand your point. Chili pepper is the right article to go to if you search for Chili peppers, too. Perhaps I'm missing something. Popcornfud (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Red Hot Chili Peppers and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
As an initial matter, MOS:ABBREVIATION says to avoid making up new abbreviations. "Chili Peppers" appears to be a common abbreviation of "Red Hot Chili Peppers" (see, e.g., this cover of Rolling Stone). Moreover, shortening a band name is very common in the English language (e.g., the Rolling Stones to the Stones and the Grateful Dead to the Dead). Using "Chili Peppers" instead of repeating "Red Hot Chili Peppers" in every instance in the article is not confusing and it would be unlikely to confuse a reader who understands how abbreviations work in context. Given that the phrase "Chili Peppers" is not circularly wikilinked to this page, I'm a bit confused as to how the redirect from "Chili Peppers" to "Chili Pepper" is relevant here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Questions based on your kind assistance: (1) Is it your opinion that we only should consider "a reader who understands how abbreviations work in context"? (2) Is it wrong to give the abbreviation as an a.k.a. in the lead to prevent any form of confusion no matter who the reader may be? (3) When anyone not initiated in abbreviation traditions, nor in the history of this band, searches the term Chili Peppers one ends up in another article not related in any way to this one; why not preclude that with the a.k.a in the lead here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order: (1) WP:MTAU notes: Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability and motivation. That is my understanding of other policies and guidelines as well, including WP:AUDIENCE. (2) I don't think it's wrong, just not necessary. (3) I still don't quite understand. If someone searches the term Chili Peppers, and they end up at Chili pepper, they will probably recognize that they're not on a page for a band and then search "Chili Peppers band" or something like that. I'm not sure how adding "a.k.a" would address your concern here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(3 [also covers 1 & 2]): Because then a reader who might not understand how abbreviations work in context, or a reader who is not familiar with the fact that this band is known to fans by this abbreviation, or a reader who might assume that "the Chili Peppers" is another band; another act; a spin-off; etc, they all would see from the very start of the article what you and one other editor here take for granted that everybody (everybody) already knows. Wouldn't clarity be nice, clarity also for the uninitiated, the non-experts, the other-than-fans? That, I believe, is why we use bold type for alternative names in the lead of Wikipedia articles, to set things straight from the start. We work for the benefit of all (all) readers of English. Believe it or not, and like it or not, there are actually many readers who known absolutely nothing about the Red Hot Chili Peppers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the possibility of readers of "average reading ability and motivation" being confused is vanishingly small. Popcornfud (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone. So would any other avid fan. That's the problem here. We don't write only for fans. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about fans. (And I'm not a fan.) Popcornfud (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed incorrectly. But you knew of this group, when you took on the 3O, and that (only) readers familiar with it might realize that "the Chili Peppers" can mean nothing else but this group? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mixing up editors. :-) Popcornfud (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Confused because you've replied in 2 different places, here for the 3O helper. Your opinion, whether a fan or not, assumably is that everyone in the world who might read English Wikipedia is at least as familiar with this group as you are. That's not my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Response to third opinion request (disagreement about adding a.k.a. to lead):
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)