Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA: Difference between revisions
m Beanie Bo moved page Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks to Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case |
→Should this incident be written in past tense?: new section |
||
| 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) | |||