Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/redraft

Okay, so, shall we do this?

So, who would like to get involved in this, and what do you think the primary aims of the redraft should be? Please bear in mind that we want to refactor the guideline, rather than change the actual meaning. SamBC(talk) 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in participating. In general I'd like to see any rewrite be shorter and, if possible, in sections that reflect common need for users of the guideline (so that most readers can easily identify the sections they need from the table of contents without reading through the whole guideline). --- SiobhanHansa 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in participating. My comparative advantage is perhaps anticipating how the result will be wikilawyered; once there's a full draft, I can give serious thoughts on refining language further. The primary aim should be to clean up inconsistencies, ambiguities, and redundancies in the current guideline, which in turn will make the resulting guideline shorter and handier to use. I agree a table of contents should be clear. THF 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested course of action

Okay, looks like it's just us (for now).

Given all that, I think what we should do is as follows:

1. Put together a bulleted summary of the content of the guideline (as in what it covers, and very broadly what it says).
2. Annotate the summary with an indication of which existing section(s) cover it.
3. Attempt to digest this material into the structure of the bulleted summary.
4. Come up with a new structure/layout for the guideline.
5. Refactor the digest into this new structure/layout.
6. Review and tweak wording to make it read nicely.

I also propose the following as a guidance criterion for ensuring that the overall meaning of the guideline doesn't change: that, in as much as it fits the guideline now, the current nutshell fits the redraft.

How does that sound? SamBC(talk) 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)