Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,198
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
For what it’s worth I really do think that if the work itself has mispelled something, in this case an obvious flaw in a faultly addition of an s after an s that is followed by apostrophe, we really should keep this faulty grammar decision on the rest of the related pages. Not because it’s correct, because it certainly isn’t, but because it would be consistent to the original. ——[[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC) | For what it’s worth I really do think that if the work itself has mispelled something, in this case an obvious flaw in a faultly addition of an s after an s that is followed by apostrophe, we really should keep this faulty grammar decision on the rest of the related pages. Not because it’s correct, because it certainly isn’t, but because it would be consistent to the original. ——[[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
:: '''It's not "faulty" or an "obvious flaw".''' Both conventions are well-represented, and unless you're taking an arbitrary prescriptivist position, both are correct. All that matters is that the Wiki be consistent. The fact of the matter is that most DWU sources go with the [ Davros's ] convention rather than the [ Davros' ] convention. Neither's incorrect — that is not up for debate, and it never has been. The question is what convention the Wiki will decide to adopt. I think it brings us closer to most DWU sources to go with the "restating the S" trend. Most people on here seem to agree. <span style="color: #baa3d6;font-family:Comic Sans;">[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']]</span> <span style="color: #baa3d6;">[[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]]</span> 17:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |