Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page: I don't think categories do the job |
|||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
:::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]Sorry if the term demoted offended. It was not intended to. I was thinking in terms of the tree structure for the articles, not in terms of possible emotional impact. Lots of leaf [incident] articles, smaller number of device articles which aggregate/lead to the incidents, but can cover things more broadly, beyond just an incident. With theme articles (or possibly a missing article type, like a navigation articles) above that. So an incident article is less than a product page in the sense of being less general (more specific), not less important or valuable. I always try to be courteous, but sometimes I don't think of possible interpretations. So, my apologies. | :::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]]Sorry if the term demoted offended. It was not intended to. I was thinking in terms of the tree structure for the articles, not in terms of possible emotional impact. Lots of leaf [incident] articles, smaller number of device articles which aggregate/lead to the incidents, but can cover things more broadly, beyond just an incident. With theme articles (or possibly a missing article type, like a navigation articles) above that. So an incident article is less than a product page in the sense of being less general (more specific), not less important or valuable. I always try to be courteous, but sometimes I don't think of possible interpretations. So, my apologies. | ||
:::I added a bit more meat to the article, hoping it will make it clearer what it could become, or inspire links to other relevant articles that exist, or inspire people to cover more medtech. If this article is to be deleted, what is the plan? Where would content like I added to the article better be placed? Is there a better name this theme article could be placed under? (I started a thread to discuss this on the article's talk page.) | :::I added a bit more meat to the article, hoping it will make it clearer what it could become, or inspire links to other relevant articles that exist, or inspire people to cover more medtech. If this article is to be deleted, what is the plan? Where would content like I added to the article better be placed? Is there a better name this theme article could be placed under? (I started a thread to discuss this on the article's talk page.) | ||
:::For example, if this page goes, and the ventilator page just covers the covid emergency, then where can we put information about ventilators beyond the initial Covid surge? | :::For example, if this page goes, and the ventilator page just covers the covid emergency, then where can we put information about ventilators beyond the initial Covid surge? | ||
:::I have more response, but want to sleep on it. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC) | :::I have more response, but want to sleep on it. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::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) | ||
:::@[[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. | |||
:::I still think the [[medical equipment]] theme article is a better solution than categories. | |||
:::The medical equipment theme article: | |||
:::* Is easier for the reader (easier to make “grandmother” appropriate). (They don't have to learn how categories work.) | |||
:::* Is easier for other articles to link to (don’t have to warn the reader that doing a context switch to categories). | |||
:::* Allows compact coverage of additional issues and types of devices for which articles have not been created. (Easier to read and maintain than creating a bunch of stubs. Having mention of a device or issue may prompt people to create more detail.) | |||
:::* Allows mention of considerations which would otherwise be replicated into articles in the area. (e.g., One could come up with boilerplate about FDA or insurance considerations, and copy it to the sub-articles – but maintenance headache.) | |||
:::* Gives place to cover things which don’t fit neatly into the existing structure (e.g., artificial pancreas) (I am not advocating coverage there long term, but it is way we can capture those things that don’t fit neatly, rather than just losing them. As we find things that don’t quite fit, the structure can evolve. ) | |||
:::* The talk page gives a possible place for questions/discussion of articles in this area. (Or, if there is a better place for such discussion, the talk page could give a pointer to it.) | |||
:::* A theme article fits in the official article types, whereas creating a new type of hybrid category/theme article feels like beyond the scope of what should be decided here? | |||
:::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC) | |||