Tabs for all user handbook pages
I don't think we actually need the parent tab template at the top like that. What we should do is have a dedicated tab template for all the things in the User Handbook template at the bottom of this page, or something similar. And it should look nice and professional, fancy, and fun. Talk | 04:14, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Like the user handbook template we have right now? I thought that this would replace that entirely, and it is a lot easier to navigate pages with tabs than a collapsible template. ••PX15..•• 04:25, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Well, probably not totally replacing that template, but at least linking to the important stuff. I just think it would look more snazzy to have a nice thing at the top of the page.
Can we place the forum rules under the same tab as the blogs and chat? What about talk page etiquette? I think we could place all of them under the same tab, but we rename the tab "Blogs, Chat, Forums, and Talk Pages" or something. ••PX15..•• 14:42, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
"Headers should be in the form ==Header==, not the form == Header ==. This only applies to articles, image pages use == Summary == automatically and talkpages are free form and no changes should ever be made to header style." - who decided this? I'm agaisnt. It's much better with the spaces, and it's generally the standard format. The fact that sections automatically added by wiki tools use this is the prove. leviathan_89 15:06, 8 January, 2013 (UTC)
- Also I propose to add spaces in lists, for example
* elementinstead of
*element. This is also the standard format. leviathan_89 15:07, 8 January, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a formal conversation on this subject, but if the headings in images are automatically spaced, why not make it standard throughout the articles too? I don't really object to this at all, so we can go ahead and implement that change. ••PX15..•• 16:40, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's important enough to be a rule, as long as the spacing doesn't change the page layout or turn the page into an incomprehensible wall of text. I personally don't use spaces in headers and such, but either way is fine really. However, like with changing links, I don't think it should be ok to edit pages simply to space out headers, like with changing link formats. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 18:28, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the current manual of style say you have to use the space-less version. You are using it simply because you are used to see it, while in fact the standard form is with the spaces (see Wikipedia and other wikis). The spaces don't change the layout, but make the code much more readable and pleasant. leviathan_89 02:51, 6 May, 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall when this became a rule either. I don't think it should matter, we should just allow either one, like Kaido said. Talk | 13:00, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
I just changed the rule. to say either is fine. Talk | 17:21, May 31, 2016 (UTC)
Can we add a space in wiki lists (
# text) and maybe proper format style for templates with lot of parameters like infoboxes? This is standard practice for wikis and increase the readability of wiki text.
Sorry, if this doesn't belong on the right talk page, but I have no idea where else to put it. It is mentioned throughout the wiki that the reliability of priority of sources should be: "Original Manga > SBS > Databooks > Anime > Accurate Translations (by reliable scanlators or translators) > Official English Dubs (Such as Viz and FUNimation)." However, I would like to ask where the One Piece Oda-authorized website would fall under. Shouldn't it be before translations and official english dubs. I ask this because the authorized website (in japanese) (https://one-piece.com/) has transliteration (as in names) info that contradicts with the wiki. Some characters have their names based off of "Accurate Translations" and Official English Dubs, but the authorized website should have more weight to it, right?
|Hey! Let's talk this out!
This is an active talk page. Please participate if you wish to make changes to the subject at hand. Remember to remain calm and civil throughout the discussion!
Right now, the wiki’s manual of style says and I quote, “Only the original manga and works written by Oda into the official storyline are considered canon.”.
However, the canon guidelines say and I quote, “These sources were either created by Eiichiro Oda or by those close to him with his approval.”
So unlike the manual of style, the canon guidelines also regard sources produced by Oda’s close associates with his approval as canon. So one of the two, either the canon guidelines or the manual of style, has to be altered to match the other as they are currently inconsistent with each other. 11:41, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
"Oda’s close associates" We don't consider them canon. If we did then we would have marked Whole Cake Island's arc as ending much sooner than it did since Oda's editor said it would. SeaTerror (talk) 21:06, July 15, 2019 (UTC)