Requests for Comment/Banning the phrase "depending on your view"

{{ClosedRfC|Nominator has {{withdrawn|withdrawn their request}} given they have said that they regretted making this RfC, so therefore, this Requests for Comment request has been marked as {{notdone|not done}} as a result. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)|As of late I have seen the phrase "depending on your view" on hundreds of pages along Qualitipedia and frankly I have good reason to believe that it is overused to the same extent as "X is a good example of what not to do if Y" style pointers. In short, this phrase, in my opinion, should be one of the forbidden statements on the wikis since users are leaning too much on it. The phrase isn't really necessary when noting divisive subjects. Words like "can" and "could" could be used instead. Marxo Grouch (talk)

Support

 * 1) I'm in full support of this because I'm tired of seeing the phrase on several pages. SuperStreetKombat (SuperStreetKombat) 12:30 (UTC), 9 November 2021


 * 1)  I would recommend better word choice, but sometimes there may be points that some people believe is a positive thing while others believe it is a negative thing. Changing to support because it’s a poor phrase for the purpose of the wikis. If a point can be a good or bad thing, mention the positives and negatives in the good qualities and bad qualities section respectively. —Atomicstar (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This term is not a bad term - and it is good when it comes to referring to media which is generally mixed to negative, or mixed to positive. It is good to let the readers decide with “depending on your view”. --DectableCord58 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't believe in banning phrases based on their use at a given time. I believe in constructively encouraging different word choices and marking that phrase as an indicator that something needs to be rewritten so it doesn't have to be used in the first place. Just change it up and justify why so it's not overused, bring other people on board if it's daunting.  This is the spitting definition of a frivolous rule that addresses a symptom and not a problem. --Raidarr (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) * You have given me something to think deeper into. Maybe more varied word choice would be more effective than just banning a set of phrases. Marxo Grouch (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Now I'm beginning to regret making this proposition. I realize now that we can just use a larger variety of word choices rather than just banning the phrase for being "overused." The other banned phrases at least had an excuse for being banned since they served as invalid pointers (ie "x is a good example of what not to do if y"). This, however, is only a sentence starter, which only serves to denote something divisive rather than serve as a pointer entirely. Therefore it does not truly have an excuse for being banned. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  with a recommendation of a speedy close: Banning certain phrases like this is like banning free speech. I'm going to just go on ahead and just speedy close this RfC as invalid, and protecting it so nobody attempts to make any illegitimate sockpuppet votes, considering this invalid vote from October 11th as an example. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Abstain
}}