Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Archiving stale talk page discussions |
→"Despite": new section |
||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:The easier to deal with issue mentioned in the deletion notice surrounds the fact that the article is quite short, and is not in a standard format for a product article. This is fairly manageable, as it just needs to be reformatted into something more similar to other product articles on the wiki. | :The easier to deal with issue mentioned in the deletion notice surrounds the fact that the article is quite short, and is not in a standard format for a product article. This is fairly manageable, as it just needs to be reformatted into something more similar to other product articles on the wiki. | ||
:The second issue is trickier: piefed's relevance to consumer protection, and general notability, needs to be justified. This is, I suspect, the main reason why it's being considered for deletion, as the other issue would only really justify a stub notice. We do not intend to have a page for every open source solution out there, and generally the only ones which have a page are very large and relevant ones like GrapheneOS (and even then there's some debate as to whether they fit on the Wiki). I'm not sure that Piefed has really has any notable consumer-related incidents to speak of, and for the page to stay I think you'd need to clearly lay out a case (ideally on its talk page, feel free to reply here or ping me if you do this) for the page's notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC) | :The second issue is trickier: piefed's relevance to consumer protection, and general notability, needs to be justified. This is, I suspect, the main reason why it's being considered for deletion, as the other issue would only really justify a stub notice. We do not intend to have a page for every open source solution out there, and generally the only ones which have a page are very large and relevant ones like GrapheneOS (and even then there's some debate as to whether they fit on the Wiki). I'm not sure that Piefed has really has any notable consumer-related incidents to speak of, and for the page to stay I think you'd need to clearly lay out a case (ideally on its talk page, feel free to reply here or ping me if you do this) for the page's notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC) | ||
== "Despite" == | |||
It seems the word "despite" may be interpreted as inflammatory language. It's much easier to avoid it in the text/body of an article, but with an incident article, how can it be described when the incident in question is blatantly contradictory? i.e. "GoPro advertises waterproof cameras despite design flaw." | |||
My intent is to title the incident as specific and concise as possible, which, something like "GoPro camera waterproof issue" does not do. Same with "Signal data collection" which I had re-titled to "Signal's data collection despite privacy-focused advertising." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC) | |||