[WikiEN-l] Re: "The 32K limit made me do it"

Mon Feb 28 05:14:11 UTC 2005

dpbsmith at 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