"
If I may WP:JAGUAR ya for a sec, there are other reasons for not capitalizing ""procrustean""; see WP:MODLANG (search for ""platonic"" to find the entry). Also, it's fallacious, and assumptive of ""neutral, ignorant"" faith at best, to suggest that those who prefer consistency over rampant specialist nit-picking are ""generalist editors with little-to-no understanding of the world’s thousands of specialty fields"". Many are specialists themselves, who, for the greater good, simply put aside their job-related stylistic conventions instead of insisting on them and smacking random readers in the face with them.  >;-)  — ''''''    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 

 A Barnstar Point 

  A Barnstar Point Awarded for remarkably pithy commentary: ""If a high-profile [Wikipedian] poll is conducted that brings in widespread participation from editors who had previously stayed away from [the] venue, and the holdouts who had been stonewalling and preventing progress merely slouch, stuff their hands in their pockets, and walk away, then that proves that they knew full well that their arguments were not sufficiently persuasive, or didn’t have sufficient numbers, or both. ... Trying to now torpedo the current consensus by stating that certain people somehow didn’t have an opportunity to participate is nothing but sour grapes ... On Wikipedia it’s called ‘wililawyering’ which is disruptive and mustn’t be rewarded."" , Wikipedia talk:Article titles thread ""Why no action on implementing community consensus"", which made my list of """". — ''''''    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. "