dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote:
1) 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