| | :::"controversial" works for me, though if you want to over-think it, liberals like to pretend that their new, alternative way of looking at something is the only reasonable, unchallenged and non-controversial way of looking at it. Naming categories specifically is more absolute and non-negotiable, which seems like a good thing for a policy. However, there may still be edge cases which don't specifically fall into those categories. Still, that's much better than it is now, and probably good enough. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:38, 20 April 2019 (EDT) | | :::"controversial" works for me, though if you want to over-think it, liberals like to pretend that their new, alternative way of looking at something is the only reasonable, unchallenged and non-controversial way of looking at it. Naming categories specifically is more absolute and non-negotiable, which seems like a good thing for a policy. However, there may still be edge cases which don't specifically fall into those categories. Still, that's much better than it is now, and probably good enough. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:38, 20 April 2019 (EDT) |
| | + | ::::90sguy, Yes, no, and maybe. The basic idea is to encourage writers to Be Bold and create content. A lot of content can sometimes be flipped to mean the opposite with one word or one edit. We don't want to frighten off new users, and use the heavy hand of deletion and blocking. By "strongly encouraging" them you can guide them to discussion and consensus. |
| | + | ::::I'd recommend using this as a Guideline and not a Policy, as yet, until it's tested out and tweaked. Whatsmore, for this guideline to work Admins have to pay closer attention to the Categorization process. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:45, 20 April 2019 (EDT) |