Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
:::I just realized why I used "demoted." The [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Article types|list of article types]] lists them numerically (product is Tier 2, incident is Tier 3). For Tier 2 it says "This tier of articles may well be the most useful to the casual reader. This is where someone who googles [insert thing here] consumer rights wiki will usually end up." Sure sounds like incident articles are "less than" product articles (as in less useful, less likely to be seen, a lower tier). | :::I just realized why I used "demoted." The [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Article types|list of article types]] lists them numerically (product is Tier 2, incident is Tier 3). For Tier 2 it says "This tier of articles may well be the most useful to the casual reader. This is where someone who googles [insert thing here] consumer rights wiki will usually end up." Sure sounds like incident articles are "less than" product articles (as in less useful, less likely to be seen, a lower tier). | ||
:::Just pointing out what seems to me a natural interpretation of the wiki policies. I am not trying to justify or defend my word choice. I still apologize if they caused offense. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC) | :::Just pointing out what seems to me a natural interpretation of the wiki policies. I am not trying to justify or defend my word choice. I still apologize if they caused offense. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
::::I do wonder whether 'trunk, branch, leaf' might be a better way of putting it than the tiers. I wrote the basic article categorisation system in an afternoon many months ago, so it is very much not gospel! It seems to mostly work, but if we do need to make tweaks, it's worth discussing [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] | :::@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] | ||
:::Just to be clear, when I first saw the medical equipment article, I figured it was a theme article. It would have been clearer had I said that in my initial appeal. I recognize that theme articles are to be used sparingly, but I think medical equipment has enough unique features and is important enough to consumers that a theme article is warranted. | :::Just to be clear, when I first saw the medical equipment article, I figured it was a theme article. It would have been clearer had I said that in my initial appeal. I recognize that theme articles are to be used sparingly, but I think medical equipment has enough unique features and is important enough to consumers that a theme article is warranted. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 110: | ||
:::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC) | :::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
::::I generally think you're right to want to keep it here, and I think you've laid out good reasons for keeping it in mainspace rather than having it solely be a category page (a medical equipment category is also appropriate, but having a real page covering this sort of thing makes sense). We ideally want users to be able to navigate around the wiki through the use of links, and a general article on medical equipment, or conusmer protection in a medical context, is sensible. The article could certainly do with a coat of paint (maybe the examples should be tabulated?) | ::::I generally think you're right to want to keep it here, and I think you've laid out good reasons for keeping it in mainspace rather than having it solely be a category page (a medical equipment category is also appropriate, but having a real page covering this sort of thing makes sense). We ideally want users to be able to navigate around the wiki through the use of links, and a general article on medical equipment, or conusmer protection in a medical context, is sensible. The article could certainly do with a coat of paint (maybe the examples should be tabulated?) | ||
:::: I'd probably say just keep it on the Wiki with a stub notice for now. Any thoughts @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]? | ::::I'd probably say just keep it on the Wiki with a stub notice for now. Any thoughts @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]]@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]? | ||
::::It would probably at some point sit under an overarching 'medical consumer rights issues' article or something of the sort, and then this article serves to discuss equipment issues as opposed to ones related to payments, insurance, sales, etc. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ::::It would probably at some point sit under an overarching 'medical consumer rights issues' article or something of the sort, and then this article serves to discuss equipment issues as opposed to ones related to payments, insurance, sales, etc. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | ||