UESPWiki talk:Etiquette

Related Discussions
Archived discusssions about the Etiquette Policy

Addition to include profanity?

Ok, so, after this latest addition to my talk page, and the occasional profane edit summary that is on the page, I would like to propose that we create a set of guidelines to include in the policy so that it is clearly defined that it is unacceptable, because we do have the random editors who start cussing up a storm simply because it isn't directly stated they can't. Personally, I haven't got anything specific to say as to what a guideline could be at this moment, but since it has always been the policy to ask people not to do it, I feel this is a quite important thing that needs to be cleared up. ES^{(talk•email)} 02:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not totally against profanity, it has it's uses, but I prefer not to see any at all, even on talk pages. I think it should be erased from all parts of the site except where direct quotes are taken from the game. The Silencer speaks^Talk 02:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can afford a little bit of leniency. Allow profanity in small amounts and where appropriate, but generally disallow it. For edit summaries, I don't see any use for profanity except for 'damn' or 'damnit', which are rarely used but I've seen them when a person's having issues with a template or formatting. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Condescending Language

I believe that it needs to be stated explicitly in our policy (perhaps under the Personal Attacks bullet point) that condescending language is insulting and unproductive and therefore should not be tolerated on this site. I've seen it around here before and frankly I'm sick of it. •WoahBro^►talk 17:37, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

And what constitutes "condescending" language? I really do believe there is too much regulation on the wiki (being nice not just civil is apparently a requirement already). Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:41, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

Condescending language consists of belittling and/or 'I'm smarter than you' remarks such as "I'll thank you to know the correct response to them before saying the wrong thing", "Well if you knew our policies...", "You and the other administrators...have no idea what you are doing", and so on. Also, being nice is part of being civil. There is also a distinct difference between being stern and being flat-out rude, condescending, and overall offensive. •WoahBro^►talk 18:10, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

I agree with WoahBro. --AN|L (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

Would linking Wikipedia:Civility in the lead or in the See Also be sufficient? Or would you rather have it spelled out in our own policy? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) I also agree, but how can we phrase it so it isn't just a "Oh, I thought he was condescending so I warned him" thing?

I think we should spell it out, just in case Wikipedia changes it or something. And to stop the "But you guys don't have a rule" ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 18:53, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

I think a link to the Wikipedia page would be good as well. —Legoless (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

Would a section detailing some examples of condescending remarks, as well as an example of a better way to phrase the same information in a non-condescending way be helpful? Jeancey (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (GMT)

I'm all for more clarification on remarks that could be considered uncivil. I wouldn't have thought we would need it spelled out, but after whats happened i think it would be a good idea to add something like that. Lorenut (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2014 (GMT)

(←) I think all of the above would be good ideas. I'm not sure if it needs an entire section, but I wouldn't be against it. •WoahBro^►talk 04:25, 28 October 2014 (GMT)