Talk:Flag of Grenada

message: , why is  better than ? What extra meaning is conveyed by the extra five syllables? --84.64.247.8 (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no WP policy that says shorter is better.  Purely subjective.  You think it's better – I disagree. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand that you disagree. I was asking why you disagree. Why is the longer version better? --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal preference.  Don't really need a reason for it to be valid.  And since I wrote the bulk of the article, and since I am trying to take it to good article status, I'll change it if the reviewer says otherwise.  Until then … —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so it's a case of ownership. That makes sense. As a general rule when writing, we try to use the fewest, simplest words to carry the information necessary for an encyclopedia article. It's not like a high school essay where you are trying to boost the word count. --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it's actually a case of you not liking my edits.  The general rule you cite is … unusual, to put mildly.  Also, it's quite presumptuous to think I'm in high school.  Lastly, stop stalking the other articles I edit. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Have you made any contributions to this article that are necessary to bring it to good article status?  Or are you planning to bicker on minutiae that is meaningless at the end of the day?  This is a case of "put up or shut up". —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say you were in high school. But knowing a little about good writing is quite important when you are writing, wouldn't you say? Have a think about what I said. --84.64.247.8 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  I hope that was enough time for you. Here is an interesting piece which might help you to think about it if you never have. And thank you for "There's no WP policy that says shorter is better.", which was one of the funniest things I've read in a while. There's no WP policy that says words shouldn't be misspelled either, or that subjects should agree with verbs. It's more of a general rule when writing. I mentioned high school; a good high school English course should definitely have mentioned this. Shorter is better, as long as the same meaning is conveyed. Unless there is a good reason that you are able to explain (and "because I like it" isn't a good reason), the shorter version is preferred. I hope that makes sense. --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   See WP:COMPETENCE.  There's only one party here willfully ignoring policy and guidelines (e.g. WP:Consensus) to suit their own purposes.  There's Flag of Manitoba (passed in May), Flag of New Brunswick and Flag of the Solomon Islands (both passed in 2017), good articles passed by 3 different reviewers.  That's the established consensus on how a quality flag article should be formatted.  Are you trying to say you know better than all of us? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

text: A case of tomato/tomato, surely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I too feel that the shorter wording is - very slightly - better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Richard Keatinge and User:Yilloslime. Generally shorter is better, as long as the same meaning is conveyed. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, we could put in all sorts of explanations about the type of election it was, percentage turnout etc. But we wouldn't on this article which is about a flag. The date is fine, with a wikilink so the interested can investigate further. That's how these here online encyclopedias are supposed to work. I think there's a consensus here, and if User:Bloom6132 can't spare the time to argue for his wordy version here, I wish he would refrain from lengthening this. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice straw man argument there – I never advocated including election type, percentage, turnout, etc.  However, I refuse to sacrifice accuracy for what you see as "shorter is better" (which is just a cheap excuse to insert inaccurate information into an article).  Your "wish" that I  is quite telling – while you accuse me of such, it is indeed you who has WP:OWN issues. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sacrifice accuracy? Inaccurate information? Do tell. One of your edit summaries read "Parties don’t “win” an election in the Westminster system. Party with the most seats forms gov’t." Now, I think that will be news to Boris Johnson, who thinks he and his party "won" the UK election in 2019. We could by your logic (expressed in your edit summary) say on the article about a US president "Individuals don’t “win” an election in the US system. Candidate with the most electoral college votes becomes president". Parties do win an election when they form a government. That's what winning an election consists of. But we don't go into any of this, because this is an article about a flag, not an election. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: More piss-poor excuses.  Why am I not surprised?  It's apparent that you still haven't read up on WP:COMPETENCE.  I'm not seeing any here with your insistence on being inaccurate.  All because you want to get 100% of your preferred wording 100% of the time.  Get a grip. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't inaccurate. And you are starting to sound like a loony. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  – is that your best comeback?  Prove it.  Also, a reminder that third opinions are .  So I'm actually not required to abide by any comments made here – it's not binding consensus. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the Guardian mistaken when they say "Boris Johnson leads Tories to historic general election win"? The Irish Times? CNBC? Time? The core of your misunderstanding is threefold. Firstly, it's only your theory that "Parties don’t “win” an election in the Westminster system. Party with the most seats forms gov’t." In the real world, respectable sources frequently refer to winning elections in a parliamentary system, as shown. Secondly, it's only your contention that this is vital to note on an article about a flag. It isn't. Details about the election and how it was decided belong on the election page, not here. Thirdly, you seem to have a very cockeyed idea of what consensus means on Wikipedia. There are three editors who reckon the proposed shorter wording is best, and one who is arguing that it needs to be made even longer. You don't have consensus. Third opinions are , but consensus is very much a guiding principle and yes you do have to abide by it. It really isn't that important in this single instance, but it worries me if you are right that there are a bunch of articles this badly written passing peer review, and it worries me that you are running around wasting people's time with your highly ideosynchratic ideas about elections and consensus. Again, please do have a think about it. You're making yourself look increasingly silly with the lengths you are going to prevent improvement of the prose here. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree that it is minor, but I fear it is not settled, and there are some interesting misunderstandings embodied in the position of the single editor who thinks that "more is better" and that consensus applies to others but not to him. It would be nice even to think User:Bloom6132 has learned something from this exchange. I wonder if he has? --84.64.236.222 (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said "more is better".  I believe accuracy is better – and you certainly don't.  And you clearly don't get it: third opinions ≠ consensus.  Canvassing two other users  in the hope that they will take your side ≠ consensus. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought not. Oh well, never mind. Happy editing. I hope your writing skills and people skills improve, and you'll be a far better editor. See you around. --84.64.236.222 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Hy 2800:3C0:2120:2F9:F5D3:E768:9F3E:2AD7 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English A