Fix typos/mistakes/wording/links in documentation/comments

[Hannes-Kunnen]

This fixes some typos/mistakes I found in the documentation and code comments. It also changes some wording to try and make their meaning more clear. Lastly it also fixes broken links and removes non-existent links.

I'm not entirely sure about the links. I fixed some broken links, I removed some that had no clear use case (links in table of content with no (sub-)title that matched it), I changed some links that were pointing to non-existent FAQs and pointed them to a similar FAQ. This might need special attention while reviewing.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.61%. Comparing base (0a15b4d) to head (493c4b5).
Report is 88 commits behind head on develop/v2.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff               @@
##           develop/v2    #1152      +/-   ##
==============================================
+ Coverage       72.00%   75.61%   +3.61%     
==============================================
  Files              93       96       +3     
  Lines           13795    12008    -1787     
==============================================
- Hits             9933     9080     -853     
+ Misses           3044     2109     -935     
- Partials          818      819       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[lestrrat]

Thank you for taking the time to do this. There were certainly more typos than I had hoped for.

One request for future PRs, though: Please make them shorter, and make them against a single topic. For example a single PR on suboption vs sub-option would have been nicer than having to review all 72 files.

[Hannes-Kunnen]

One request for future PRs, though: Please make them shorter, and make them against a single topic. For example a single PR on suboption vs sub-option would have been nicer than having to review all 72 files.

I'm sorry, I kind of dumped everything in this branch whenever I encountered something (and eventually I just went through most of the files I had opened and noted things here). I must have seen the few places that used the sub-option and went with that, I probably should have seen that sub-option was rarely used in comparison (personal bias could also have played a factor).

[lestrrat]

thanks!