Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
not necessary at all but I'm not gonna blow the servers up (hopefully) |
|||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:::@[[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) | ||
== Can someone help me on the mess I made here? == | ==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) | 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) | |||