FANDOM


Manual of Style discussion

Drive-by grammarian's note: the concise way to say "conciseness" is concision. To my mind, it seems ironic to use the word conciseness to head a section that extolls the virtues of being brief. — CzechOut 21:43, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I'm working on creating an updated system of tutorials, help pages, and policies so that they're all up to date with the way we currently do things... That said, "extols" only has one L in it. So there. :P - Hatebunny (talk) 22:49, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

Out of date policy?

Hi, there seems to be a problem with this style policy, in reference to "no fact is too small"

I'm being reverted when trying to add trivia, locations, vehicles and character lists to articles about DC's Star Trek comics, with the explanation that this site has a policy not to expand those articles ... but I can't find the policy which requires that user to revert all my additions. This user stated the Star Trek comics do not need the inofrmation, so it seems that some facts are too small, in direct contradiction of this style document, so you might want to update it as the manual of style has led me astray, apparently, and i'm adding information i'm not allowed to!

This is quite confusing for me because

  1. I have expanded lists in other Star Trek articles.
  2. There was a box requesting the information.

I think this represents a problem with how the wiki works because I spent time making a contribution i believed to be valid, only to have it removed, and I feel this is quite rude - Captain MKB 21:02, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

See DC Database:Licensed characters and crossovers. No DC fact is too small. Also, message wall reply upcoming. took some time longer to write than planned. --Tupka217 21:05, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Bring Your DC Movies Together