Talk:Smartwool adds forced arbitration to EULA: Difference between revisions
→Should this incident be written in past tense?: new section |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: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? == | ==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) | 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) | |||
Revision as of 19:12, 25 October 2025
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 Action Taskforce:Editorial guidelines and the Article Types pages.
Keith (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge article
Hey @Katastrophic and @RMCHammer I see that you have added some info to this page. I think this would fit better in the company page that resulted from this video. I have linked it in a merge request if you fell like trying to enchance it.
Kostas (talk) 15:36, 11 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!) 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) 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. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)