Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page: I don't think categories do the job |
→Outdated wiki link: Reply |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Outdated wiki link== | ==Outdated wiki link== | ||
The following I copypasted from [[Template:ToneWarning]]’s talk page. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC) | The following I copypasted from [[Template:ToneWarning]]’s talk page. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC) | ||
:Done! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 11:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
Due to the changes made since this template's creation in January 2025, I recommend updating the link used for "editorial guidelines". Clicking on it currently leads to the top of the [[Mission statement]] article since the original section label no longer exists. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | Due to the changes made since this template's creation in January 2025, I recommend updating the link used for "editorial guidelines". Clicking on it currently leads to the top of the [[Mission statement]] article since the original section label no longer exists. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
| Line 96: | Line 98: | ||
:::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) | |||
:::::This makes perfect sense. I think it would help organize the wiki a lot, and help new contributors decide which article type is most fitting for what they want to write. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:27, 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. | ||
:::I still think the [[medical equipment]] theme article is a better solution than categories. | :::I still think the [[medical equipment]] theme article is a better solution than categories. | ||
:::The medical equipment theme article: | :::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 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). | :::*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 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.) | :::*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. ) | :::*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.) | :::*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? | :::*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) | :::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'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) | |||
:::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] I think you and Drakeula made great arguments for why it should stay. Though I guess I should say my personal philosophy, which is basically to assume that others by default ''won't'' work to improve existing articles, especially niche ones. Most users prefer high traffic articles pertaining to large companies or major controversies. My personal opinion is that leaving a lot of low quality stubs ruins the integrity of the wiki, ''especially'' for articles that are 3+ months old. When I add relevance/deletion notices, it's on these articles that: | |||
:::::- have been stubs for 3+ months | |||
:::::- have not had any notable edits/improvements in 1-3 months | |||
:::::- are niche articles that have extremely low probability of further improvements, etc. | |||
:::::As a moderator, I'm ''attempting'' to fill that gap, which is why I sort of informally taken control over articles I feel like I may be able to do justice in fixing (e.g. covid ventilators). When low quality articles are left on the wiki, it's basically the moderators' responsibility to fix them. And since we don't have enough hands or time to fix the hundreds of articles out there in need of substantial work, I tend to err on the side of deletion, simply for maintaining the wiki's integrity. | |||
:::::So I understand completely why you err on the side of keeping articles unless they clearly do not belong. But I do genuinely think it could work against us if we have 900 articles yet half of them are stubs or need substantial improvements. And it's pretty clear that they will continue to stay stubs for months to come, leaving that stub-to-complete article ratio to ever increase. | |||
:::::Just food for thought, I guess. - [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I suppose my hope on that front has been that a good pool of 'stuff that needs work' will encourage people to work on it. Because we want the wiki to end up being reasonably comprehensive, I think that having a stub article basically just saying 'this should be an article, and here is at least enough stuff to justify it being more than just a row on article suggestions' has value in 'holding place' on the wiki and allowing other articles to link to it, and giving a bit of visibility that it needs to be properly written. | |||
::::::Realistically, it will be quite some time before we are at the point where we'll expect the wiki to be useful to a reader. At that point, when it comes (maybe around ~2000 articles? next year once the UI overhaul is done?) it might made more sense to have a 'step-up' in how strict we are about zombie articles. So for now I'd say that policing the deletion zombie articles should probably be mostly restricted to articles that make you go 'this could just be an entry in the article suggestions page' (although if an article feels irrelevant or is just complete trash, that's a different matter). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::That makes total sense, especially considering how young the wiki still is. I see where you're coming from and I can adopt that philosophy lol. Thanks for explaining it [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I’m fine with either approach, though for now adding a Stub template is good. I agree we should be more strict on "zombie articles" once the wiki becomes more fleshed out. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
==Can someone help me on the mess I made here?== | |||
Hello, I have recently made an article on the [[Biometric Information Privacy Act]] which I have completely messed up! I saw that King Louis made a place in the [[Friend app#See also|see also of the Friend app article]] about the BIPA, so I decided to make one myself, but me not being a US citizen and not fact checking, I based it on [[wikipedia:Biometric Information Privacy Act|this BIPA from Wikipedia]] but somehow combined it with this [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4400/text| bill] (the wikipedia one was an [https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0994| Illinois] one). So basically what I did was combined two articles into one and only found out when doing refs ~1 day after. Should we [[wikipedia:WP:TNT|blow it up and start over]]? Somehow save this? I need help here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The second bill you shared leads to a broken page. I'm gonna go ahead and make the judgment call that you can nuke it. Trying to parse through the information of which bill it belongs to might take more time than simply starting over. Also, I personally operate on the philosophy that "if I don't fix it myself, no one else will" (which isn't ''always'' true, but it's true often enough). And it seems especially true for niche pages like this one. If you want to fix it yourself, just make sure you add Illinois to your searches and make sure the relevant websites is Illinois state and not federal govt. Thanks for the attempts anyway, even if it gets nuked. We always appreciate contributors looking into policies and such, since it's rare that it happens. You're good! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 15:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Should've checked the second bill! I'll add a deletionreq now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh, I meant erasing the content and perhaps just having a one paragraph explanation and stub! Probably shouldn't have said "nuke." I was referring to that wiki article you linked to: "With articles, this is the '''TNT tipping point''' argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." Maybe I read it wrong, sorry! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::<nowiki>*facepalm*</nowiki> Thanks for removing it, I couldn’t have because abuse filter. Also, the WP:TNT article means to delete the entire thing (done via a deletion discussion, which is in Wikipedia where people vote on whether to keep or delete an article) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
==Remove ‘Help About MediaWiki’ from the help list== | |||
This literally comes with MediaWiki to help you learn about it while setting up and it is still in the menu. I don’t see why we need this? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC) | |||