View Topic

Constitutional Law

Arguably not; "Lord" is occasionally used as a title for females. So we should probably have a discussion on this before amending it as a typo.

It was actually HannahB who first pointed this out to me in the IRC. I like the discussion idea.

Amending amendments... somehow I find this nitpicking both satisfying and amusing.

I almost checked the Underhusen Procedure Amendments, but that would have been too much .

Royal Decrees

I'm not sure I agree that all of those are style choices, but it doesn't matter too much here, so I'll just keep the first comma error and ignore the other two.

Treaties

This treaty just got repealed, so no need to fix this one. Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure our new Speaker (or our current Speaker, @BraveSirRobin, for that matter), is responsible for maintaining the archive, so the repeal law should probably be added in and the treaty struck out. Or is @Wintermoot responsible? Don't exactly remember.

I forgot to remove this one after it was repealed.

And also you don't exorcise nations, at least not in NS.

Dang it!

Nope. This is the British/European/US military/MLA style. It's either the US style, "October 29, 2016" (with a comma), or the British style, "29 October 2016" (without a comma).

I didn't realize this was different in the British style. All of these laws were annoying to correct because I had to learn the British style; I almost corrected all the punctuation after quotation marks but realized British was different. Why, America!?!?

Underhusen Procedure

I'd argue that this is a style choice, though I personally would put a comma.

I would argue that it's not a style choice because it's an introductory phrase.

I believe that "Structural Amendments" was treated as Amendment IX (much as "Omnibus Amendments" was treated as Amendment I).

I thought that too at first, but there are some other amendments to it in between that don't have numbers and don't offset the other Amendments' numbers.

So I've just spent over an hour and a half going over your report... As Gerrick said, this must've taken forever to do. Despite my nitpickings, overall this is a very nice and thorough check of Wintrean law.

I like Oxford commas, but I see no need to add them, as it's right either way.

Also, considering all the comma nitpickings, I highly recommend reading the New Yorker piece "Confessions of a Comma Queen." Overall just a fun read about grammar, style, and copyediting.

Thanks for taking the time to go over my corrections. I think you see now why it took so long for me to get around to finishing this

Since I don't know if just including the quote author notifies the person, I'll add in an @taulover here.

Since I don't know if just including the quote author notifies the person, I'll add in an @taulover here.

Apparently it does. Interesting.

Treaties

Nope. This is the British/European/US military/MLA style. It's either the US style, "October 29, 2016" (with a comma), or the British style, "29 October 2016" (without a comma).

I didn't realize this was different in the British style. All of these laws were annoying to correct because I had to learn the British style; I almost corrected all the punctuation after quotation marks but realized British was different. Why, America!?!?

I am surprised, though, given your interest in grammar and style, that you haven't seen the MLA date format before.

Underhusen Procedure

I'd argue that this is a style choice, though I personally would put a comma.

I would argue that it's not a style choice because it's an introductory phrase.

Commas are not required after short introductory prepositional phrases, though they may be added for clarity.

I believe that "Structural Amendments" was treated as Amendment IX (much as "Omnibus Amendments" was treated as Amendment I).

I thought that too at first, but there are some other amendments to it in between that don't have numbers and don't offset the other Amendments' numbers.

Right. I'd mark it off as an inconsistency that's more a hassle to fix than to keep, especially as any earlier references to the Procedural Rules would then be wrong.

Royal Decrees

I'm not sure I agree that all of those are style choices, but it doesn't matter too much here, so I'll just keep the first comma error and ignore the other two.

Looking them up, because why not...

The first should probably have a comma because it's after a conditional.

The second does not need a comma, though it can probably be added, because it's a short introductory prepositional phrase (I think?).

The third involves "as," for which the rule is basically to add a comma if need for clarity.

I am surprised, though, given your interest in grammar and style, that you haven't seen the MLA date format before.

I've only seen the American MLA date format before. This (and the sources listed at the bottom) says that there's an American version and a universal/British version.

I didn't know that short introductory prepositional phrases don't require commas, so that would have helped to know.

I am surprised, though, given your interest in grammar and style, that you haven't seen the MLA date format before.

I've only seen the American MLA date format before. This (and the sources listed at the bottom) says that there's an American version and a universal/British version.

MLA is an American organization, and despite that, most examples you'll see out there place the European date format as the default. I've had many teachers require it, in fact.

I forgot to point this out earlier, but why is Decree 010 still not in the laws page? @Wintermoot

Technical issue with editing laws that I haven't gotten around to fixing yet.