Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA: Difference between revisions
→Merge article: Reply |
m updated links |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Tone usage== | ==Tone usage== | ||
Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer | Hi there! I know this article is in a very early stage, but I just thought I might mention this as a course-correction early on rather than once the whole article has been written. Ideally we'd like for incident articles to be very neutral, written from an unbiased perspective, and focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as an accurate reporting of commentator and community reactions to the incident in question. The NPOV concept discussed in the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki content policies|Wiki Content Policies]] should summarise this, as should the discussion of tone within the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines]] and the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Article types|Article Types]] pages. | ||
[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC) | :I think here the best practice might be to keep the company page relatively light on the details of the incident, and have the incident page contain most of the info on what happened to do with the forced arbitration. In that case, we'd not do the merge, and just move this page to a more sensible name (i've made an initial move but if anyone has a better name feel free to take action!) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC) | ||
==Should this incident be written in past tense?== | |||
In English, past tense is for ''past'' events as I understand. This article doesn't seem to have a company's response indicating they've made it easier to opt-out of forced arbitration though. Should those sentences be changed to present tense or are they OK as is? (Yes, English is not my first language and when it comes to naming specific grammar I easily get lost) [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 18:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I’d say that past tense is generally the tense that should be used in the wiki, but for titles, think of them as like news articles where in that case they’re present tense. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Raster is correct, especially for incident articles as they are usually current events, and especially for forced arbitration which will likely be there forever. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 19:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC) | |||