Talk:Musashi/@comment-25336329-20150410062835/@comment-25490263-20150412060405

As am I. I don't deny I'm invested since I overhauled the page though. As this has occurred a few times now, it's clear we have disparate definitions of what 'readable' is. Or what it should be.

Bad English? We'll have to disagree on what constitutes that then unless we want to compare English qualifications & delve into style guides.

1- Sure, a couple spaces could have been missed. Other than that, why does one order sound better than another?

2- Since you mention 'why', it seems you acknowledge this is a personal preference. As for the link, meh, at the time, it didn't seem self-explanatory in the nautical definition. If it is so vexing, fine, it can go.

3- Personal preferences, as you mention.

4- Someone will have to look that up. With the next best alternative, it might as well not be mentioned.

5- This isn't a report or article but a listing of notes & trivia. I don't see why separate clauses & events need to be combined. Space isn't an issue. The separation eases skimming. I find it disagreeable that these aesthetics can be asserted by guidelines.

The notes meant that I disagreed with converting bullets into paragraphs & otherwise longer sentences in a different vision of readable.

As for the latest edit, the relevance of most of the grammar & other changes still aren't clear to me. At this point, we may as well sandbox the trivia & notes sections & discuss changes line-by-line as I continue to disagree the the majority of changes.

A couple questions: - What's the 'point of her construction drop-rate was reportedly increased' when the bullet mentioning it's reduced in the following update is retained? -- Why should the dates be removed?