|To-do list for Wikipedia:Spellchecking:|
Looking for "dialect marker" words sounds very optimistic. Realistically, Wikipedia articles have US spellings, British spellings and misspellings all mixed together. Art LaPella 19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Drift by unmotivated spelling change
|“||Note: some Wikipedians claim that if the dialect of an article has "drifted" from its first nonstub version, via a series of unmotivated spelling changes, then the dialect to which the article has drifted should be considered the "correct" dialect of the article.||”|
What exactly is an "unmotivated spelling change"? How do you change something without motivation? How would you detemined whether a spelling change were motivated or not? Jimp 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia should not adopt one standardized spelling convention, but the practice of going back to the original stub seems arbitrary. Can't this guideline say something like, "Make sure the spelling used is correct and consistent according to some regional spelling system or other"?Leoniceno (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This just advises that if the article changed dialects without someone changing the whole article all at once or sneaking the changes in a coordinated fashion, there's no need to change it back to what it was before. The point of "first dialect wins" is simply to decide on one in an arbitrary but objective way, so we don't waste time going back and forth. Changing a consistent article back to a previous dialect would also be a waste of time, in this opinion, but it's trying not to allow editors to just change the dialect by fiat, since this would encourage other editors to change it back and waste time. -- Beland (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Several (nearly 100) Wikipedia articles contain the nonexistent word "impliedly"; this should be "implicitly".
I can't be bothered to track down and correct all of them (I have severely limited internet time); could others take over this task? 126.96.36.199 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And if someone does this, formations such as "impliedly — expressly" should be changed to "implicitly — explicitly"; not, of course, because there's anything wrong with "expressly" on its own, but because "implicitly — explicitly" just looks better than "implicitly — expressly".