I'm reviving this little abandoned project. After thinking about Kent's and Jon's comments from a year ago, something clicked. This is really a guidance page, not a policy page. We need to give enough information to help the uninitiated work their way through the problem, but the long explanation made the structure of the flow difficult to follow.
So....
I clarified the language. Rather than making it very terse, I added a bolded summary to each of the options. I also combined from three into two, with the last one being the catchall for what to do if nothing "normal" works.
I'd like to take the Examples section and do something different as well. The examples as given implement a solution. I'd like to see the examples at top at most illustrate the problem clearly. Don't give solutions until explaining the process.
While I would keep the Pennsylvania solution in there, I would not want to specifically use the name of the state, because this is not a state page. It can be in the mix for solutions.
So....
I clarified the language. Rather than making it very terse, I added a bolded summary to each of the options. I also combined from three into two, with the last one being the catchall for what to do if nothing "normal" works.
I'd like to take the Examples section and do something different as well. The examples as given implement a solution. I'd like to see the examples at top at most illustrate the problem clearly. Don't give solutions until explaining the process.
While I would keep the Pennsylvania solution in there, I would not want to specifically use the name of the state, because this is not a state page. It can be in the mix for solutions.
Re: City conflict naming update