Talk:Preadolescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Preadolescence is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Serial comma or not?[edit]

Currently this article is nearly 50/50 regarding the use or omission of a serial comma; internal consistency is roughly the same distance, from here, either way. That being so, clarifying the status quo regarding MOS:SERIAL seems a prudent thing to now do.

A dispassionate review of this article's development shows the first inclusion of a serial list in prose exercised the preference of using a serial comma. That could easily have been maintained absent a discussion with good reason and clear determination for change, but it was not maintained, and by willy-nilly we are now here.

So I ask: what is it to be: Use serial comma, Omit serial comma, or way too much drama? Please avoid the third option to the extent you are able. Of course quoted text will not be affected by any such preference and will continue reflecting the source, faithfully. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Use serial comma, it's more professional, most often, less ambiguous, and no good reason ever emerged in discussion for changing the first valid election of use.--John Cline (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about the matter, John Cline. Feel free to make the article consistent on that matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)