Thread:Brandon Rhea/@comment-104549-20150303233912

While I agree with you and the overwhelming consensus of editors that changing ThePrinceOfTheNorth's "Commander Hero" to just "Hero" is in line with community standards, I think his point in this thread draws out an important issue. When he said he "couldn't find anything in the policy that said [he] couldn't have it the way it was", I looked through the Article guidelines myself, and sure enough, the requirement that ranks not be included in titles didn't survive the paring down of the Manual of Style.

I point this out not because I think TPOTN has a valid argument—I agree he doesn't—but because it might be justification for reinstating the Manual of Style in full. I know you felt the MOS was too dauntingly large as it was, but now people can't be expected to know the ins and outs of article standards. We provided TPOTN with the Article guidelines link way back when, but it didn't help, because the "no ranks in article titles" provision really isn't there.

I concede freely that, even before I was a law student, I went beyond tolerance to actual enjoyment of long, detailed policies, because I like detailed guidance and a clear and unambiguous enumeration of what is expected. But even putting my idiosyncracies aside, I think the community (and especially new writers, whom we refer to these policies) would be better served by the full MOS which they can read at once or consult by section(s) when the specific need arises, than the current, more generalized Article guidelines which run the risk of today's stillborn edit war. 