Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks: Difference between revisions
Add topicm Keith moved page Talk:Forced Arbitration On SOCKS! Purposely Difficult Opt Out Scam Explained to Talk:Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks: old name was quite radical |
→Merge article: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Tone usage == | ==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. | 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. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Merge article | ==Merge article== | ||
Hey @[[User:Katastrophic|Katastrophic]] and @[[User:RMCHammer|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. | Hey @[[User:Katastrophic|Katastrophic]] and @[[User:RMCHammer|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. | ||
[[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC) | [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk: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!) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:48, 20 February 2025
Tone usage[edit source]
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[edit source]
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)