Forum:Script to ban players
Don't take the title too literally. In view of the success of the outcome of Forum:Script to ensure people sign their comments, I would like to propose a similar script, except it would be for the mainspace only. It would trigger a pop-up is one were to make an edit that added the word '(the) player(s)' to the article.
The use of 'player' is not appropriate in 99% of the cases (it shouldn't be used in quest guides, NPC/monster articles, items, etc.). The only thing I can think of where 'player' could be used is in a trivium where, like, a bug is mentioned that would 'render players wearing adamant invisible'. Even then, it could easily be substituted with 'people'. In general, 'player' is very ugly on quality articles and this pop-up should advocate its removal by telling people to substitute it with something better like 'you' (only for quests) or 'the adventurer' (for historical descriptions in articles), 'people', 'one', passive forms (players should select the third option --> the third option should be selected), imperative forms (select the third option), etc...
The message would be something like: It appears you have used the word 'player' in your edit. We try to refrain from using this term in our articles, so could you consider changing it something else? As with the signature script, once you click it away it won't appear again in the same edit.
To clarify, this pop-up would include a change to RS:STYLE to basically outlaw the use of 'player' where a less horrible term (as listed above) can be used. Practically everywhere, yet editors seem keen on using sentences like "Vanstrom then spots the player from a balcony and proceeds to attack him. Players should beware, because his damage could kill a low-levelled player.", which are very very ugly IMO.
Now, where did I leave my banhammer...?15:21, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- That's in his proposal... Reread paragraph 4. MolMan 21:13, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Please read that sentence more carefully. 'You' should be used in quest guides and quest guides only. Any other instances of 'player' should be subsituted with a passive, an imperative or something else, unless completely unavoidable. If it wasn't clear I wanted to alter the style policy, I'll clarify that. 16:20, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I can't recall ever triggering an abuse filter that didn't disallow the edit, VSTF filters seem to always disallow rather than warn - does it give a visible warning in the form of a popup or similar before letting the edit be submitted?
- Assuming we allowed this for just quest pages, would I be correct in thinking we'd need to add each new quest page to the abuse filter as they are created? Given the number of sysops willing to/confident with editing js/css pages, I can't imagine it's going to be updated very often. cqm 16:37, 11 Mar 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
- @Fswe1: Doesn't matter, I will place "the player" in a guide if need be as it states "For guides, 'you' can be used" and as it currently stands, the player is acceptable everywhere on the wiki. There is no should except on non-guides.
- @Cam: There are abuse filters that allow edits to occur but just tag the edit (IP edit to userpage) and VSTF is just that spam filter using a large blacklist. As for filtering out guides, that's easy with category whitelisting using REGEX. Ryan PM 16:50, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- @Cam: The intention is to have a warning message that triggers upon trying to save an edit wherein "player" was added. Like the signature script, it will only popup once and is to notify rather than disallow. Oh, and do note that the proposal is not only for quest guides (RS:QSG suffices in terms of writing style), but for nearly the entire mainspace. Quest guides were simply an example to show that 'player' can be substituted for something else (in the case of quests (and only quests), 'you'). 17:18, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - After thought, I think blocking an edit over something so minor is unreasonable. Not everyone is completely fluent in English, and it would be unfair to penalise for this. After all, it is just a guide as opposed to a policy. cqm 21:06, 11 Mar 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
- It wouldn't be blocked though. People are free to ignore the message if they feel they are not sufficiently proficient (<3) in English to rephrase it, they would just get a notification. It's up to them if they wish to heed it or to ignore it, but it's a fact that at least some people will obey and rewrite their sentence(s). In addition, I think it's wrong to encourage the use of 'player' in a style guide/policy where less ugly words can be used. That is to say it's incredibly annoying for a reader to see 'the player is... players should...' every other line. It also suggests an alternative - as if we have separate information for players and botters, or something (trollface). 14:33, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Silliness. Looking at the current state of some of our most popular pages, the sentences are not ugly. In fact, it would be worse for the pages if they were removed of the word player and replaced with something else. (Saying that 99% of the word player in articles is incorrect, is incorrect itself. Most cases seen are grammatically correct and sound correct) Let's look at some examples:
- "Although the vast majority of these methods were and still are accurate for many of the adventurers who've contributed to sharing these methods, they are not guaranteed to work for every
singleone." - Money making guide ... Many of the adventurers? Really? This sounds like we're getting into the game a bit too much. All we're doing is providing information for the player.
- "It is important to note that Nex's drop mechanics differ from those of other bosses while LootShare is in effect. Rather than merely dropping all of a high-quantity item to
a singleone" Nex ... This sounds silly. It really is more descriptive as "a single player." It gets the point across and everyone understands it.
In all seriousness, this seems more of a personal preference. The articles are correct and everyone understands them.. well, for the most part. Hair
- "Although the vast majority of these methods were and still are accurate for many of the people who've contributed to sharing these methods, they are not guaranteed to work for everyone." And: "It is important to note that Nex's drop mechanics differ from those of other bosses while LootShare is in effect. Rather than merely dropping all of a high-quantity item to a single person" Adventurer would be a horrible choice here, yes, but people/person is fine and sounds equally correct as, if not better than, 'player'. In some cases, 'adventurer' can be used (mostly on history sections of NPCs/battles/monsters/etc. - not a money making guide...), but I'm not saying it should always be. 14:33, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - If you find yourself going back to a sentence for the sole sake of finding a way to avoid a particular word, more often than not your sentences will only become worse. Fluency is not something you can force. MolMan 17:51, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Opposde - Because player(s) looks fine.17:43, March 17, 2013 (UTC)