dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
- I'm not necessary challenging the 32K limit itself. I was urging
that the message present 32K as a _soft_ limit, a guideline requiring _deliberate_ action. The old message sounds like a call to jump in and do something immediately.
I've Been Bold and rewritten the message. It now reads:
"Note: This page is 38 kilobytes long. Under current article size guidelines, articles that exceed 32KB are considered to be too long. It may be appropriate to restructure this topic into a related series of shorter articles, or split off a section of it as a separate article. However, these are major structural changes which should not be made hastily, and should be made by consensus agreement among editors of the page. See the guidelines for details."
I just compared this with the existing message. This one has 77 words compared to 29 on the existing one. Considering also that the first seven words remain unchange this represents a revision that is more than three times the old size. If we are to encourage succinctness, brevity here would serve as an excellent example. :-)
Ec