Talk:Service blueprint

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" [...] Building a blueprint [...] Motivations for an Enhanced Blueprint [...] Our (research explores how to introduce new elements to the blueprint for capturing the meanings or emotional qualities that the customer experiences during key moments of the service.) Our (motivation is to augment the listing of customer-provider actions with some working form of a bellwether that could be used to temper the ups and downs of the customer’s relationship with the provider. Attending to this relationship is an important factor in maintaining and sustaining the customer base, as the customer’s emotional state during the service contributes to their overall perception of the service.) " I never read first person writing in encyclopedic style... Who is writing? Who is this WE? Is it Wikipedia team? This sounds really weird! 78.245.206.53 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to[edit]

The following discussion, pertaining to Service blueprint has been copied from a User talk page:


"I reverted your original edit on the Service Blueprint article because it was unexplained. Your edit summary simply said "visual edit" which tells which software you used to make the change, but tells us nothing about why the change was deemed necessary. There is no "WP refers" problem. The policy simply says that such and such "refers to" is sometimes a problem." None of this suggests that it is always a problem, nor that it is a problem in the specific instance. In addition, it is not enough to just quote policies or guidelines as a justification for editing changes. Instead, the edit summary must state how that guideline applies in the specific case in point. All WP policies/ guidelines are flexible, and there is always room for exceptions. Therefore, the onus is on the person making the changes to provide reasonable cause. My preference would be to leave the sentence in its original form. But, I do not have strong feelings about it either way. BronHiggs (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript. I have modified the article again in light of your concerns. Please note that the WP:REFERS which you have quoted has the following qualification at the top of the page: "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guideline. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." [emphasis added] Furthermore, the explanation only refers to "phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to a Wikipedia article." [emphasis added] The passage of concern was not in the article's introduction and was not, in my view, problematic. The use of "refers to" is simply not problematic, and I fail to see why some editors such as those who contributed to the explanation, would try and problematise something that has never been a problem. If the wikipedia community is foolish enough to adopt the advice offered in this explanation then it will cause all manner of problems with English expression and with meaning.


Here are a few examples of the phrase "refers to" as used in reputable Encyclopedias:

  • "In a restricted sense, the term [grammar] refers only to the study of sentence and word structure (syntax and morphology), excluding vocabulary and pronunciation." (Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/grammar)
  • "The expression particle density refers to the number of particles per unit volume, not to the density of a single particle, and it is usually expressed as n." (Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/density)
  • "Specifically, symmetry refers to a correspondence of body parts, in size, shape, and relative position, on opposite sides of a dividing line or distributed around a central point or axis." (Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/symmetry-biology)
  • The term "hedonism," from the Greek word ἡδονή (hēdonē) for pleasure, refers to several related theories about what is good for us, how we should behave, and what motivates us to behave in the way that we do. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism)
  • "The term "community health" refers to the health status of a defined group of people, or community, and the actions and conditions that protect and improve the health of the community." (Encyclopedia.com)
  • "The term biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms in a habitat." (Encyclopedia of Life, http://eol.org/info/464)
  • "The term migrant worker refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in work in a remunerated activity in a state in which he or she is not a national." (Edmund Jan Osmańczyk, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, p. 1429)
  • "Ideology refers to participation as a search for meaning." (Charles Donald Spielberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology: A-E, Volume 1, p.404)

Please don't become one of those WP editors who seizes on one trivial issue that is not even policy and then goes around searching for it in articles and reverting it or changing it without reasonable grounds. BronHiggs (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Volunteer1234 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a suggestion. If you are really interested in being useful to Wikipedia, and working within policy guidelines, please consider undertaking some alphabetical sorting. I have noticed that almost all "See also" lists of links and "Category" lists (at the very bottom of the article) are presented in random order but they should be listed in alphabetical (or chronological order). Another idea is to improve references - too many articles have poor quality references such as blogs or corporate puffery websites. In my view, this type of work is much more useful to users than whether the term "refers to..." is being used or not. BronHiggs (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think clear writing without circumlocutions and redundancies is important. This is not trivial to me. Let's leave it at that. Thanks! Volunteer1234 (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

It was deleted on the basis that " removed long argument that encyclopedias should be written poorly because it is tradition." I would like to point out that an article is not poorly written simply because it uses the phrase "refers to." Wikipedia currently has NO guideline nor any policy on the use of "refers to." However, an essay which proposes that the phrase "refers to" be eliminated from LEAD SECTIONS ONLY is currently being discussed; See WP:REFERS. Let's be very clear, a PROPOSAL is not a POLICY. Even those who have proposed this amendment to the WP Manual of Style have commented that "those editors [who are deleting every instance of its use] are using this essay (currently supplement) wrongly. It should be clear to them that we mean first sentence instances that define the topic as though the topic is about the word." BronHiggs (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Service_blueprint&oldid=1170294596"