Seems reasonable. The English articles will make up the backbone of information to which all other language versions will be compared to so it is a sound policy to try to use language that can be understood bo as many people as possible Juxo
- Right, so if you have an issue with the definition of time horizon here, as you raised in talk:time horizon, you must take it to [1] - where a lot more people can and should argue with you over it - and only when you are satisfied that *that* definition is correct, should you fix the much shorter one here. This is a bit of a pain but it drastically reduces the risk of our relying on any unchecked or nonstandard definition of terms that will matter a lot when we are doing this in 40 languages....