Talk:Common exceptions to the guidelines

I really think the idea behind this page is a good one; if there is a little consistency in how PMs handle the project-specific exceptions (is that an oxymoron?), it may help improve consistency in those exceptions being followed (another oxymoron). I think it's very important, however, that the Intro to this page make it a tad clearer that this page is a resource for PM's to use in writing Project Comments, and that any proofers and foofers coming across this page should be made totally clear that none of these exceptions apply unless the PM has specifically put them in a specific project's Comments. I hope you know what I mean. -- kraester 21:51, 24 December 2006 (PST)

Definitely. I think I was going to put something like that at the top but obviously I forgot to. --Acunning40 07:02, 25 December 2006 (PST)

Hmm, I can't figure out how to say it. If you can come up with something, go ahead and put it in. If no one has done so after a while I'll try again to figure out what to say. --Acunning40 07:08, 25 December 2006 (PST)

Here's something. It may be a bit strident but it should be emphatic about not using these for general proofing.--vls 12:18, 25 December 2006 (PST)

I tweaked the wording just a bit. While the "N.B." was totally correct and appropriate, I have to admit that even I wasn't familiar with that bit of Latin before I started working at DP, and I was worried that, given the dearth of Latin infused into our "typical" curriculum here, a lot of U.S. DPers, especially those most likely to construe this page as more "authoritative" than it really is, might not know what "N.B." is. :( Thus, I replaced it with the wordier, but more obvious "attention proofers and formatters."

I'm not totally satisfied with how I tweaked the second paragraph; it seems a bit awkward still, but it's the best I could do at the moment. FWIW. -- kraester 23:19, 26 December 2006 (PST)