In mathematics, it is usual to call terminal results “theorems” and intermediate results “propositions” or even “lemmas” depending on importance and place in the overarching proof. Suppose that one is refereeing a paper where the authors have decided to call almost all their results “theorems”, making a paper with a large number of “theorems” that even emeritus professors don’t usually reach by the end of their career. (Such theorems include computation that could conceivably given to as end of year exams to master students. Not to diminish the importance of the paper, the actual theorems are good, but the 20 others are not theorems. There are more theorems than pages.)

Would it be acceptable and well-received to suggest toning it down? Or would it be overstepping and rude? This is not just a philosophical question: I truly believe that it makes the paper harder to reader, because it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to say. A reader does not know what is important and what is not.