I added an informative text to a tag which had no excerpt. (click to see the case, should be publicly available)

To me this seems a reasonable excerpt which is not superfluous, not harming readability. I would even say it informs users of the usage of the tag. The tag in question is the '20th century language' tag, so I added in the excerpt '1900-1999' and some added text to make it readable. In response, I seem to have received a rather standard answer, which does not tell me why this would be a bad proposal:

"This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability."

It would be very informative to properly tell users why a proposed edit is bad, otherwise they will make the same mistake (if it actually was one) again. Please provide me (and others) with this information.


The Twentieth Century ran from 1901–2000, not from 1900–1999. :)

  • 5
    Because that's not how language works. There is no year 0. The first year of the first century was the year 1 not the year 0. You also don't get to vote on math. :) – tchrist Mar 17 '18 at 17:13
  • 2
    @JJJ That's nice. You don't get to vote on how other people speak or think, no matter what ISO V̅MMMDCI may say. – tchrist Mar 17 '18 at 17:18
  • 1
    @JJJ People use words the way people use words, and the 20th Century has always meant 1901–2000. We aren’t passing a law telling them they’re wrong when in fact they are indeed mathematically correct and it’s the people who don’t understand ordinals who are wrong. What’s next, voting that a pound is half a kilogram instead of sixteen ounces, or for the acceptability of singular they? – tchrist Mar 17 '18 at 17:24
  • 4
    @JJJ While life would be a whole lot easier if every software and firmware developer on the planet adhered to ISO 8601 instead of trying to do their own thing (and failing miserably at it), the purpose ISO 8601 is not to define English vocabulary - it's completely irrelevant here. It's well known that "The Twentieth Century" means 1901-2000. Whether or not the standard for communicating date/time information wants a zero-based index or a one-based index doesn't change the English name of the century. – ColleenV parted ways Mar 17 '18 at 17:34
  • @tchrist - it's worth pointing out (especially to the OP) that the Roman numerals generally cannot rise above 4,999 nor drop below 1. The 5,000 could be written as V̅, but this is not really accepted; sometimes it is MMMMM, but we can't really have a universal value, as the highest value is 1,000 (M). On the other hand, in the case of 0, the Romans used to write the Latin word Nulla, which means "none" or "absent". In the modern period, 0 was written more often than Nulla, which made 0/I/II/III/IV etc. We don't really have a standard way of writing RNs above 4,999 or below 1. – Yubin-chan Jan 18 at 6:03
  • @tchrist - in fact, it makes sense that the first year was year 1 and not "zero", and how we had to transition to modern Arabic numerals as the years passed by. In the cases that are out of the range, it is much better to write Arabic numerals than the Roman ones which lacked many concepts that we know today, as various non-positional numeral systems (not just the Roman numerals) had a normal behavior like this: no zero, no negatives, no fractions, no decimals, value limits, and such others. – Yubin-chan Jan 18 at 6:08
  • @tchrist - new tag excerpt created. – Yubin-chan Jan 18 at 6:13
  • 1
    @tchrist re this comment. I like how two of your three predictions seem to have been accepted since (at least here on SE). Last year, pronouns were a hot topic on meta, and singular they seems to be the favorable starting point now. Yesterday, SE's digital marketing manager celebrated the new decade. You may have a gift here. Be careful what you wish for (or against), literally. ;p – JJ for Transparency and Monica Feb 20 at 11:39
  • @JJforTransparencyandMonica they should probably take down that blog post and rewrite/reupload it on 2021, which is the next year. – Yubin-chan 15 hours ago

It was rejected because you mis-defined the 20th century as 1900-1999. The 20th century was actually 1901-2000.

Your proposed tag wiki says:

For questions relating to 20th century English, i.e. 1900-1999.

If you had typed in 1901-2000 instead of 1900-1999, it would have been approved.

Update: , as I just implemented a new description for the tag (which was approved):

enter image description here

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .