(Thoughts for discussion which should really not go here ;) )
Yes. This seems to be the de-facto practice already for parts of the doc, good to make it explicit.
I was wondering about mul and add args, though: There is an older discussion about their utility and potential outdatedness, and while that discussion didn’t end in any way conclusively, keeping mul and add in the boilerplate seems like it would endorse the conservative option (i.e., mul add “good” because people use it), as opposed to the reformist one (mul add “bad” because inconsistent). If the boilerplate is meant primarily for new doc files (rather than revision of old ones), then I would argue not including those args in it is the more neutral decision.
Agreed, I can see at least three strands in there:
- Things that concern arguments specifically;
- My nitpicky humanities prose hangups such as punctuation and citation (which we can really just discard if it’s not worth people’s time);
- Other things that concern formatting irrespective of where in the structure the text is (i.e., irrespective of whether it’s an arg description or an intro paragraph, …).
There may be other possible ways to carve it up, feel free to suggest things.
(I’ll edit the list later today to reflect your and @prko’s suggestions.)