Forum:Renaming RS:UTP

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Renaming RS:UTP
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 April 2012 by TyA.

I'm making a thread to rename one of our important policies: RuneScape:User treatment policy. I feel as if it should be moved as it has a difference from all other policies. That difference, is that most other policies are somewhat "orders".

Let me try put it another way: RS:BB. The name of the policy basically sums up the whole thing. The name is telling you to do something. RS:UCS. This policy is simply telling you to use common sense. You don't even need to read the whole article to understand the policy. There are many others: RS:PDDA, RS:DDD, etc.

But, RS:UTP. You can't tell someone to "User treatment". And people have to read the thread.

I'm suggesting we change it to a name like the other policies. I don't have any good ideas, but "RuneScape:Be nice" is something. Also, there may be other policies which also don't follow this trend of "ordering", but I'm not sure.

HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:40, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:40, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm in favor of moving policies away from names that imply some action or some meaning. For example, RuneScape:All Editors Are Equal (AEAE) suggested an implication far beyond what the policy actually entailed. Hence, it was moved to its current location, RuneScape:Status and opinion-weight, via Forum:All Editors Are Equal.

"User Treatment Policy" is an accurate description of the policy's contents; it's much better to have an indirect name than to have a direct name that attempts to suggest some course of action. It avoids confusion between the policy's contents and the title. --LiquidTalk 01:48, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I've always rather felt that UTP didn't necessarily mean be nice but rather be respectful towards others. And while I see what you are getting at, telling somebody to "be nice" could be misinterpreted even worse than it is right now, as right now some people misinterpret it as saying nice things about people eg in Sum's original RfCM. I fear if we change it to RS:BN, then there will be an increase in inexperienced editors crying "RS:BN" over every oppose or comment they don't like What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 01:50, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ciph. We had users who assumed AEAE meant that everyone is exactly equal in every possible way, and hence cried AEAE at any sign that such was not the case. This is something I'd really like to avoid with the UTP. Quite frankly, I started a proposal to rename Ignore All Rules to Use Common Sense because people were shouting IAR at random things. Granted, I didn't pick a passive name, but the principle holds.
Names that are too active (like "Be nice") have a high potential for misuse. There's nothing wrong with the current name. --LiquidTalk 01:55, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Already does exactly what it says on the tin. If you want someone to be nice, just tell them to be nice. I've never found just quoting a policy as a particularly apt way of dealing with somebody anyway. --Henneyj 02:05, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. The name "User Treatment Policy" is fine and, along with encompassing everything the policy has to say, already implies that you should "be nice" to other wikians. And yes, there are other policies with names that aren't commands, but we shouldn't change them for that reason alone.  Tien  02:37, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I haven't had any user question me or seen a user been questioned when UTP is thrown towards them. If they read the policy, they'll be fine. Hair 02:48, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that something like "be nice" doesn't cover the scope of the policy well enough. While it's important to get the point of the policy across, the "this page in a nutshell" sections suffice better. At any rate, I think that "User Treatment Policy" better encompasses the range of the policy, and I've never seen any instances where someone doesn't understand the policy quickly. The term even brings to mind, to me anyway, simply being respectful and not attacking editors, as that's what I'd expect from a policy about treating others, even without reading it. Hofmic Talk 06:16, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't tell people to "user treatment policy" the same way I don't tell people to "style guide" or "ownership". Titles do not need to include an action in order to be descriptive and appropriate to what a policy is. --Aburnett(Talk) 08:10, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - ...You want to rename a policy so that people don't have to read it? Per Kevin and Tien. Ronan Talk 09:31, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Being nice isn't the same as not being deliberately insulting. We aren't all going to be the most cheerful person around, but there's a difference between being permanently happy and violating RS:UTP. cqm talk 10:33, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I actually would like some more policies to have less implicative titles. 222 talk 10:56, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Matt (t) 23:40, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:38, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - "Runescape:User treatment policy" does what it says on the tin; it's a policy dictating how users treat other users. What are you going to name it, "Runescape:Y U NO NICE" or something? Smuff [cite your sources or die] 16:03, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Actually he states he'd replace it with "Be Nice" What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:40, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - RS:UTP will not be renamed at this time. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:50, April 15, 2012 (UTC)