Talk:Tentacles by Turakii (Number) 1 Lavasurfer

From BIONICLEsector01

Replacing (Number)

I think that it should be possible to replace (Number) with the # symbol without having MediaWiki think that it's a section by placing the following code in MediaWiki:Common.js: $(document).load(function() {
var text = $('h1:first-of-type').text();
text = text.replace('(Number)', '#');

It wouldn't actually change the page name itself (so you'd still have to search for the page as its name appears now), it would only change what appears at the top of the page (Metax's page shows what I'm referring to). -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2012 (PDT)

WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS -- Dorek Talk External Image 10:14, 16 November 2014 (CET)
Actually, even better, if you set $wgAllowDisplayTitle to true in LocalSettings.php you could change it directly on the page by adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:Saga Guides/Tentacles by Turakii #1 Lavasurfer}}. If we integrate DISPLAYTITLE into the infoboxes it'd also let us get rid of the (Generation _) part of titles without relying on JS. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2014 (CET)
Addendum: Apparently you have to set $wgRestrictDisplayTitle to false as well, otherwise you're only allowed to change capitalization and replace spaces with underscores. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2014 (CET)
Sure, I'll believe that =P.
Whenever somebody gets around to it~ -- Dorek Talk External Image 07:42, 17 November 2014 (CET)


there's a typo on this page - homonym error of there vs. their. is that because it was originally written that way and we're trying to keep the original (and thus we should add a "sic" to it) or is it just a plain old grammatical error? Intelligence4 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2017 (CET)

We do try to keep these preserved based on how it was written by the winner, as not to dishonor them. I suppose we could go ahead and ask the original authors if they would not mind us editing them for grammar, though. It's probably something we collectively should ask ourselves of which is more important: Spelling/grammar, or accuracy to the original entry? --External Image Owner (talk|contribs)
I think that accuracy is more important, so adding some [sic] would work just fine. ~OnionShark 10:33, 6 May 2017 (CET)
i think we should try to be most accurate, even if the original copies are a little off - we can just make a note that they were edited for grammar/spelling. onion, we'd add [sic] if we kept the originals, as that acknowledges that you're quoting a mistake - which did you mean to say we should do? Intelligence4 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2017 (CET)
It seems clear to me. By "accuracy", Swert and OnionShark are talking about accuracy to the original entry - meaning we would keep the grammar/punctuation/spelling as it was in the original, even if it's wrong, and add [sic] if we feel it's necessary. You seem to be talking about correcting grammar/etc mistakes, which isn't the same kind of "accuracy". For the record, I also support accuracy to the original entry over adherence to grammar/etc rules; we keep Greg's serials as they were written, so we should do the same for these. --Angel Bob (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2017 (CET)

I feel like we should take a formal vote somewhere haha. for clarity's sake, let's say "accuracy" refers to being grammatically accurate, while "original/originality" refers to what the author originally wrote, mistakes included. (since accuracy could refer to more than one thing, while original couldn't.) Intelligence4 (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2017 (CET)

I think that terminology would be too confusing for new people coming in. If we were to vote, how about between "original text" and "grammatical corrections"? --Angel Bob (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2017 (CET)
yeah, i think that's pretty clear. Intelligence4 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (CET)