User talk:MasterQuestionable/10

= With the MoS itself so poorly composed, how to possibly convince? =

[     To add comments, go to [ ./pool ]. ]

Archived: [[ [ MasterQuestionable @ CE 2022-08-30 03:33 UTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1107462518     Due to the MoS's readability, I've not adequately analyzed all its content.     However at a glance it seems: the most part of MoS merely asserts certain practice without giving any rationale:     And the suggested practice may not even come out of any careful consideration. ]

&#x2D;---

[ MasterQuestionable @ CE 2022-09-02 22:25 UTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1108169389     [ Quote Mandruss @ CE 2018-10-10 08:54 UTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863361137 The existing guidelines received due consideration whether you agree with them or not, and they should be left alone absent a VERY compelling reason to change them. ] <^>    Due consideration?.. Primarily for absent exposure and adequate readability for receiving which supposedly. ]

&#x2D;---

[ SMcCandlish @ CE 2022-09-12 17:14 UTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1109933058 Most style guides are without rationales, which invite debate. The place for rationales and debate is the talk pages, and they (and their archives) is where that will all be found.     As for MoS otherwise not being all that well-written, it's because (like all of  matter) it's written by committee over a long period of time, and isn't someone's monograph. It just comes with the territory. ]

&#x2D;---

[ EEng @ CE 2022-09-13 00:26 UTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1109995390 Posts like the OP are best left unanswered. Archiving. ] ]] ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_226#With_the_MoS_itself_so_poorly_composed,_how_to_possibly_convince%3F ])

Mere asserting without any explanation, the practice itself would be whatsoever unconvincing: Which would mean most style guides are of the very problem.

"poorly composed" comprises more than just formatting issues: most prominently, the foiled logics behind the implied rationale. And superficially: some poorly formatted style guideline instructing how to format.

See also [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterQuestionable/6#Inefficient_topic_management_by_Archives ]. And as demonstrated in related incidents: see all these reasons went?

- MasterQuestionable (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)