When I initially wrote this question, I mistakenly wrote "ex mode" instead of "command-line mode".
Some of the comments clarified my mistake, and suggested a solution.
There was also some uncommon and interesting information on normal mode being called "command mode" in the documentation, and key maps sometimes being called "macros".
For reference, these are all the comments on that answer:
Statox's comment was re-posted as an answer, so his comment seems redundant to me?
Rich's comment about the different Vim modes is useful, as it clarified your question, but I'm not sure what the value is in keeping it after the question was edited?
The point of the Stack Exchange format is to – as the tour phrases it – "Ask questions, get answers, no distractions". It seems to me that an aside about terminology doesn't really fit that?
If you ever search a problem on the internet and you end up on a forum or mailing list you know how annoying random commentary can be. You frequently have to dig through pages of comments and asides to actually get at useful information (if there is any). Many of those comments were useful and educational for the OP at the time they were posted, but they're often not very useful for future visitors.
The point of keeping things "distraction-free" isn't so much to help the question asker (e.g. you), but rather to help future visitors. Remember that the primary goal is to build a foundation for vi/vim knowledge. This site is a "Vim wiki" just as much as it is the Vim mailinglist. You probably wouldn't expect random commentary about Vim modes on a wiki page about the FocusGained autocommand either ;-)
I appreciate that this narrow format can at times be somewhat restrictive by the way, but it does bring real advantages. I guess that the SE sites are like a Unix tool: "do one thing and do it well".
