Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:::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) | ::::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. | ||