Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling

message: I don't understand...the word "dialogue" in the comparison chart is exactly the same in each column...why is it being compared? Calgary (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Someone had made the alternate spelling invisible. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialogue

message: I know that, on the Chinese Wikipedia, they have a tab that allows you to alternate between Simplified and Traditional Chinese, while keeping local vocabulary in mind. In the edit field, they have templates where, if an instance of word X appears, it will change to word Y when a local variety of Chinese is used. For example, both Hong Kong and Taiwan use Traditional Chinese, but they have different words for "bus". I don't see why we can't do something similar on here, letting people choose between UK and US English and all. Pandacomics (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese has very flexible grammar, unlike English. Just switching spellings won't do much for the reader---any kind of "translation" has to be able to take care of idiom and metaphors. And anyway, the varieties of English are all mutually intelligible. 118.90.54.71 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: Can someone move Canada to the second-right position? It would all be easier to read, then. Tony (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: Australian and New Zealand English have almost exactly the same words in the word comparison table. Should we combine them? This, that and the other [talk] 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aus/NZ English 

message: British English with Oxford Spelling (-ize)
Spellings: centre, programme, labour, defence, organization, recognize, but: analyse
Why does it read "but:" before the analyse? Dream Focus (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As is made plain above, we're discussing -ize and -ise - but  note the "i" - not a "y". This is the underlying reason for separating off analyse - as the OED does! 81.102.15.200 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  but:: analyse question 

message: story – storey: a story is a tale; outside of North America, upper floors of buildings are spelt "storey".[3]
  
In Canada, you will find "storey" referring to the floors of a building. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: story/storey

message: In Br Eng this seems to be a case of different spellings for different meanings: "routing" is the verbal noun meaning "partying" or "snoring", whereas "routeing" is the verbal noun for allocating to a route, etc. This is a very hasty paraphrase from the OED, so to make things plainer finishing off with their direct quote: "Delineation of routes, etc...Routeing is the better form to distinguish it from ROUTING vbl. n. and ppl". --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the OED used to say... but contemporary dictionaries (including Chambers, which is the source for the Spelling guide) list both routeing and routing (usually in that order); the currency of routing in the UK is also supported by British National Corpus data, as analyzed by Peters, cited in our mighty spelling differences article under "Dropped e."  After all, the OED argument for the irregular form routeing is pretty weak--context usually makes the meaning clear. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routing/Routeing 

message: Seriously, do you really need a citation for that? Have you EVER read any modern (read: from 1920 to the present) document from the US Government using the words "labour," "defence," or "programme"? I do not think they call it American English for nothing. Maybe, perhaps, slightly likely, the American Government uses it. I will remove the "citation needed" mark. It is preposterous and almost arrogant, if you ask me.
:I actually cannot ask you, since you didn't sign (or date) your entry. David Spector (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US Government uses the American standards 

message: The element alumin(i)um was named by Sir Humphry Davy (an Englishman) in 1809 when he prepared an iron-aluminum alloy. Hans Christian Ørsted first isolated raw aluminum metal it in 1825. Davy named the element he first identified "aluminum" but the British, including its Commonwealth and other European countries changed and use "aluminium" to maintain consistency with other elements eg. americium, barium, strontium, cerium, niobium, nobelium, etc.
What a fuss Humphry Davy made by leaving out an "i"?
--Euc (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the abridged version.  It's a little more complicated than that... I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I thought I would keep such discussions short on a discussion page and give an abridged version.Euc (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumin(i)um 

message: I know that the Canadian Oxford dictionary prefers "yogourt" over other variants, but clearly it does not prevail.  See the entry on yoghurt in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences
Using a quick google search including the term "Canada" and one of "yoghurt", "yoghourt", "yogurt", and "yogourt", while excluding the other 3 in each search, (e.g. search for: "canada yoghurt -yoghourt -yogurt -yogourt") garnered the following results:
Canada + yogurt  - 721 000 results
Canada + yoghurt - 228 000 results
Canada + yogourt  - 23 800 results
Canada + yoghourt - 10 600 results
Although not completely scientific, the huge difference between these numbers cannot be ignored.  In fact, since the "yogourt" spelling is also used in French, it is probably even less relevant in Canadian English than indicated by the numbers.  The agenda of the now defunct Canadian Oxford should not trump all. 210.116.131.228 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know.  As a matter of fact, I wrote the entry on yogurt myself, almost three years ago.  However, this page is *not* supposed to analyze spelling tendencies in English-speaking countries--American and British English differences serves that purpose.  This page is only supposed to give an overview of the different spelling systems based on "major dictionaries" and "government guidelines"; this means that we have to stick to the references provided--that is, major dictionaries (and, when applicable, government guidelines).  (Truth be told, I personally believe that this page is completely pointless.)  Anyway, in this context, your argument qualifies as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position," which is original research.    I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yog**rt 

message: I was surprised not to see the above in the comparison charts either here on on the American/British spelling page. I know that - particularly for British users - it has long been a bone of contention with spelling checkers in software packages that the "British English" version permits the former (US) spelling.
Should it be included here? Crimperman (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Liaise is overwhelmingly the more common spelling in both American and British English. Apparently (according to google ngrams) 'liase' was (slightly) more common in America for a period of about 4 years at the start of the 1900s. Currently liaise is preferred over liase by a scale of about 144 to 1. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Liase/Liaise

message: I was about to add *User:Angr/Unified English Spelling under "See also", but decided to mention it here. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Angr/Unified English Spelling 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: Can someone make a colour chart explaining what the colour differences in the main table mean? -- Phoenix (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that light blue entries use the same spelling as the American spelling, light breen entries use the UK spelling, and light pink entries use something else (both UK and American, or maybe something else... I didn't bother checking each entry). I have no idea why two of the Canadian entries are in bright yellow. In my opinion the colours are so subdued as to be useless. Aside from the bright yellow, I didn't even notice the colours until I found this discussion topic. Meters (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  changed the yellow entries to pink since they don't follow either UK or US Meters (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Colour 

message: I have begun editing an article in which a rather bizarre minority spelling appears. I've checked the usual printed sources, and that spelling is not preferred in Britain, not preferred in America, and not preferred in specialized technical publications on the subject of the article online or offline. Right now, the article cites TheFreeDictionary.com as a source for the etymology of the word and for the bizarre spelling, but that seems odd, as the free online Merriam-Webster dictionary would be a  reliable source for (American) spelling that is every bit as convenient (and more authoritative about etymology). What online spelling resources are usually preferred for Wikipedians working on articles? (I used to be a professional editor and a translator, and I have a home office chock full of all the usual print dictionaries and other reference books used in editorial offices.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary is a sister project and can be used. e.g. Wiktionary:bibliophile. (Piped to bibliophile). I can't say that it has the meticulous oversight of Wikipedia but most words seem correct. Having said that, it will contain alternate spellings. Or (worse for you) someone can add them! Student7 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Wiktionary is a sister project and many Wikipedia articles with words to define should link to Wiktionary to show the definition. But to verify the definition or spelling, just as to verify facts in articles, Wikipedia needs to point to  reliable sources independent of the Wikimedia projects. For the moment, I see the online Merriam-Webster dictionary as an especially authoritative and especially convenient resource for Wikipedia editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Wiktionary is a reliable source at all. Some could easily create a Wiktionary page then use it as a source in Wikipedia. Wiktionary should be (but usually isn't) sourced as well. The free online edition of the Oxford dictionary seems the best free online source. It contains information on British and American spellings. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be correct for disputed spellings, but Wiktionary can be linked inline (okay, piped, to be technically accurate) just like Wikipedia articles. Non-Wikimedia dictionaries have to be footnoted, not linked. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is TheFreeDictionary.com a reliable source for spelling? 

message: Suggest that we use Oxford spelling in all Wikipedia articles, except in writing quotes or discussing spelling differences, as UN and its organizations all use Oxford spelling in their English official documents.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by Oxford spelling? Oxford University Press publishes dictionaries of American English, and as far as I know, those dictionaries attest American spellings. (I suppose you are referring to one subsection of the project page here, about international organizations. But anyway, Wikipedia has already decided not to prefer one system of spelling, British versus American, over another across the Wikipedia project, as is documented already on the  project page here. As a practical matter, we have to let Wikipedians all over the world use the dictionaries they have at hand as they write new articles.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the spelling 

message: Commentators thought there should be notice here of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Using_local_terms_for_local_phenomena. 
Question: is this national varieties policy relevant to naming articles, such as whether the river should be at Ganges (international usage) or at Ganga (national usage)? I think I know the answer (and certainly my own preference), but it isn't made explicit anywhere, which results in arguments on interpreting policy. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  name variants 

message: "judgement vs judgment: judgement is preferred in British English (except in the sense of a judge's decision, in which case judgment is preferred), judgment in American English"-- I'm pretty sure that the quoted claim is incorrect. In modern american english, judgement is standard.--Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, at least in New york Times, i'm wrong.24.7.28.186 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources are your friend. The several dictionaries (both British and American) I have in my office confirm the statement in the Manual of Style here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: judgment in current article 10/30/2010

message: Most of the Canadian spellings are correct, but I've always been taught to spell organisation and sceptic as such. Can anyone else confirm this? Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the precise question. All spellings are correct, but an article may be in one dialect or another in which case, the spelling for that dialect must be followed for that article. If you are asking if "organisation" and sceptic is correct in American dialect, the answer is no for Wikipedia. It is correct for most (or maybe all) other dialects and "organization" and skeptic would be wrong there! I agree that there are sometimes "secondary" spellings in various dialects, but we go with the main one to avoid arguments. So much easier than arguing that a "secondary" one "could be" acceptable in both/other dialects. Student7 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Canadians do no always spell exactly as the Americans – Canandian English is closer to the original British English than American English is. The problem with Canadian English is that there is no standard like there is for American and British English. People spell differently depending on whether they idenitfy closer with the British, French or Americans. McLerristarr | Mclay1 00:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues with the Canadian spellings 

message: There needs to be some agreement for standarisation of the spelling of racket (or racquet)
At the moment, all of the pages describing sports played with rackets (e.g. tennis) read like an absolute shambles.  I'd suggest using racket, because it reads more easily with its more phonetic spelling and is in more common use globally (strangely, British English speakers almost never use the old english racquet, it's only American English speakers who use both).  I'm happy to go around and standardi(s)(z)e this, but I thought It'd be better to share the idea for one way vs the other with the community first, and have a discussion as to which way it should go.
Veggieburgerfish (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling only needs to be standardised for each page. Different pages can use different spellings. Whatever spelling is used on a particular page needs to be discussed at that page's talk page, not here. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope the sport uses racquets, though I confess my American dialect spellchecker doesn't like it. RICO is aimed at rackets. The mob and all that. IMO.  :)  Student7 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racket vs Racquet 

message: Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved.  NoeticaTea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style 

message: How should diatrics be handled? For instance, in an article with a title containing diatrics, should the article be consistent and use diatrics in every mention of the subject?
Please add a  to my talk page when you respond. ··gracefool☺ 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diatrics 

message: I'm sorry, but very few people in the UK spell jail as 'gaol' anymore.  Although occassionally seen, it's bordering on archaic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.202.106 (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about the same in Australia as well. Although it is used to refer to historical jails sometimes, like the Old Perth Gaol. - Imperator Talk 08:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's preservation in a proper name, not general usage.  Similarly, lots of old churchy placenames in the UK use spellings like "St James Cathedral" without an apostrophe, because the names pre-date the fixation of Modern English orthography, and no one "official" (be it Ordinance Survey people, or church officials) and forced a change.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaol? 

message: I raised the question of how to handle archaic spellings at the WP:Teahouse, and from the conversation there 
The WP:Spelling page currently reads:
:Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances (for example, quire may be used instead of choir in architectural contexts).
I'd like to promote this to its own section and add the following:
:As a rule of thumb, make life easy for the reader both for reading and for looking things up.  For example, the text of an article might read "Thomas Ady attacked the Demonology of King James..." while the citation should read Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx, 1597....".  This rule frees the casual reader from having to decipher the archaic spelling while giving the serious reader a better idea where to find more information.  Adding a  may help prevent well-meaning editors from correcting the spelling "mistakes".
:As an exception to this exception, the "long s" glyph should usually be rendered as the modern "s", and typographic ligatures (such as the single glyph for "ct") should be rendered as separate characters.  Aside from the difficulties of reliably rendering these glyphs on browsers, most of the online material relating to Early Modern English is indexed using ASCII rather than Unicode.  
Comments?
Garamond Lethe(talk) 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand on archaic spelling 

message: Problem:  Retaining archaic spelling used in titles of references may be baffling to casual readers, but modernizing the spelling may make locating the reference more difficult.
Example:  Thomas Ady's book Hocus Pocus Junior (1634) was printed as Hocvs Pocvs Ivnior.
Suggestion: 
:When archaic spelling is used in the title of a work, modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references. For example, the text of an article might read "Thomas Ady attacked the Demonology of King James..." while the citation should read Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx, 1597....". Adding a  may help prevent well-meaning editors from correcting the spelling "mistakes".
:As per WP:MOSQUOTE, archaic glyphs should be modernized within both quotes and titles (e.g., æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the).
Comments?
Garamond Lethe(talk) 08:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify what this RfC is asking about?   Did you already add the above material, and you are just asking for opinions on it?  Or do you want to modify that above guidance (it is already in this MOS)? --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC:  Archaic Spelling in Document Titles

message: You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC 

message: How's this?
"Theater" is more common in American English than "theatre" is.[] According to the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, "theatre" is reserved for proper names.[]  However, according to Words about Words: Rest of the Title, some publications use the term "theater" to refer to a building in which plays are performed or in which films are shown (a theater) and "theatre" to refer to the performance itself (theatre arts).[] Most U.S. dictionaries list both spellings and both meanings.[][][][]
There we go.  Source A says X, source B says Y, and dictionaries say Z.  The distinction is mentioned in a way that shows its proportional use in American English without claiming that it is standard American English.
Since every source that mentions the distinction adds a qualifying phrase (Words says "some publications," Show says "consensus among my colleagues ... disputed," and Hickney says "many believe") the article text should have qualifying phrase as well, preferably the exact same one used in the source.  I've used Words here because its qualifying phrase, "some publications" will made the distinction seem more credible to the reader than other phrases used.  I could also get behind "a consensus among many theater professionals." Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasing of the prose section

message: It is important to remember why this guideline contains the section this debate is about... we are not trying to give a complete list of every single word that shifts meaning when spelling shifts.  We are listing a few of them... as examples of the phenomenon, so the reader can better understand our guidance.   So I would like to ask... Is the "theater/theatre" distinction really a good example?  Does mentioning it really clarify our guidance?
I don't think so... Yes, a few US sources do use the theater/theatre spellings to distinguish between the building and the art form.  However, I question whether  enough do so to make it a good example for this guideline.  Good examples are those that are clear and unambiguous... that don't require a paragraph of text to explain.  So I have to question whether this is really a helpful example of the phenomenon we are trying to explain (words where different spellings are given different meanings).  So... I suggest we simply omit it. Not because it is correct or incorrect... but because it isn't really a good example. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your vision of what the article is for and I agree that it's not a clear example, but I feel that if "theater/-re" were not mentioned at all, theater/-re professionals would assume that it was an omission, and re-insert the "theater means building, theatre means art" distinction without realizing that it's not exactly standard English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see Blueboar's point. I also feel that we shouldn't be suggesting what is or isn't predominant without a secondary source making that claim and certainly not from OR of the tertiary sources. Its instructional and that is not the purpose of our guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Examining the issue from a different perspective

message: How about having it not really matter, both be correct, and if it has one spelling leave it be. It shouldn't matter that much if an article uses American or British spelling... in my opinion, a war over the spelling would violate WP:NPOV. iTAC ཏལྐ་ ཝོརྐ་ 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no one is questioning that both spellings are used.  The issue is whether "theater" and "theatre" mean different things in American English.  The short, short version is that Amad believes that "theater" refers to venues and "theatre" to performances and I don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: How about

message: It might be useful to have one list of all differences between the English language variants, including vocabulary and orthography. It might usefully be in the Article namespace.
Here are examples of common differences that are currently omitted from this section:
Boot/Trunk (auto), Elevator/Lift, Petrol/Gasoline
I can't find a complete and reliable source for this on the Web, but it would be very useful. David Spector (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Such things are covered in the article Comparison of American and British English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add more words that differ - not just in orthography 

message: Wouldn't it make more sense to mention all variants in the intros of articles and then carry on using one consistent type of spelling or something? I don't think people feel too good about Wikipedia if it insists on not mentioning multiple spellings at least in article intros (for example in Child labour, or Organizational behavior)????
Hendrick 99 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This would make the intro pretty unwieldy. Taking your organizational behavior example, I know of two other variants: organisational behaviour and organizational behaviour. --NeilN talk to me 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. Most English speakers are generally aware of the spelling variants and the risk of confusion or misunderstanding is nearly nil. IMHO, as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia discusses denotations of terms; it does not indulge in spelling-related research unless necessary to avoid confusion. kashmiri TALK 19:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Hell no.  Too many variants.  WP:ENGVAR has been around forever, and discussed until well after the cows have come home (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intros 

message: Should Wikipedia have a guideline about "publically" for "publicly"?  Background information is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Misspelling of "publicly" (version of 16:01, 22 July 2013). 
—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced this is an error rather than a legitimate variant. The revised OED 3rd edition (2007) has a (shorter) entry for "publically", noted as the same meaning as "publicly" but without making any statement deprecating it. Citations are as recent as 1998, contemporary with their citations for "publicly". Andrew Gray (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that bizarre, to say the least. That being the case, it's certainly only been recognised recently. Earlier editions don't acknowledge "publically" in any shape or form. If you refer to their free site, you'll find that it is still listed under Common misspellings and is still corrected on the 'publicly' definition entry itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a guideline that a generally accepted spelling should be used rather than a disputed one, in the absence of clear differences between countries? "Publicly" is definitely correct and recognised; "publically" is not universally accepted and likely to be disputed or warred about. Similar to pleaded/pled, dived/dove. Pol098 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

text: It was in the supplement in 1982, the 1989 second edition as well as the 2007 third edition http://www.oed.com/publicationhistory/154055?nojs=true 82.69.192.195 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling of "publicly" 

message: http://www.thewire.com/business/2011/10/once-and-all-its-spelled-protester-not-protestor/43558/ states that all major news sources' style guides prefer the spelling 'protester'.  I couldn't find a prior discussion here. I'd like to know if this should be corrected. — Brianhe (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's according to an MoS for a newspaper. Even if it is used commonly by other newspapers, it does not make it 'the' one and only acceptable spelling. It would also depend on whether articles are US specific. Are you asking whether this is purportedly the only 'correct' spelling across the board for all English-speaking nations? As an example, it certainly isn't with regards to either journalism or publications in Australia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protester or protestor? 

message: I'm working on a featured article candidate at the moment and have run into a couple of issues about American English usage, which I hope someone here might be able to advise on. Specifically:
* When referring to a public toilet, is "bathroom" the preferred term?
* Is it redundant to talk about "diners and restaurants"? - i.e. are diners synonymous with restaurants? Prioryman (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice on American English usage?

message: I'm surprised the list doesn't include Cheque/Check.
Antoniomagni (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheque and Check 

message: Shouldn't we write this as two words (under way) normally, and with one word (underway) only when it is an adjective preceding its noun (like: "The underway trip was cancelled.")? Or what is the preferred style in Wikipedia? This page does not address this. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Some dictionaries use one spelling, some use the other. Oxforddictionaries.com has "underway" for American English, also allowing "under way", while it has the preference reversed for British English. Macmillandictionary.com says "underway", but says never to use it before the noun. I would say "The trip that was underway was cancelled." Since major dictionaries allow both forms, we can't have Wikipedia choosing one. Heck, we can't even get Wikipedia to outlaw "publically". If you see an article where both spellings are used, determine which form appeared first in that article, and then change the other one. Chris the speller yack 04:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks! That was useful advice. It may indeed be best to only fix this when it is applied inconsistently within an article. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underway vs. under way 

message: In the Battle_of_York entry, harbour has been changed to harbor. When not referring to a proper name, is there a Wiki rule of thumb? TIA  Natty10000 | Natter  13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. Given the battle was fought in Canada and the Canadian spelling is the same as the British that's what should be used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. I assumed as much but didn't want to start what could turn into an edit war. :)  Natty10000 | Natter  15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harbour vs harbor 

message: I was a little surprised to find "encyclopedia" and "diarrhea" listed as accepted Australian spellings, and doubly surprised that the former is actually listed before "encyclopaedia"! Unfortunately I can't check the citation, as I don't have the online Macquarie or an up-to-date paper version. (For what little it's worth, my old budget Macquarie doesn't list either spelling, even as variants.) Can someone check it out?
And while I'm not interested in arguing the question from further up the page, about whether the Macquarie should be the referenced standard for Australian, if it turns out that they do endorse "encyclopedia" and "diarrhea", I might just become interested... (That's not a "how dare they change my beloved spelling" complaint, by the way. It's an "I seriously don't believe that that's a true description of accepted Australian usage" complaint.) -- Perey (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 1981 Macquarie (all that's to hand at the moment) lists Encyclopaedia, with "also Encyclopedia" near the end of the entry after the definition. The entry is "diarrhoea" with "also diarrhea". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the instancing of "sulfur" as an alternative to "sulphur" in Australia. It is, with "aluminum", one of the few American variants positively eschewed in this country. And "kerb" and "curb" have different meanings here: 'kerb" (noun) as an edge of a footpath and "curb" to restrict or restrain. Doug butler (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I'd like to see this usage in WP:RS: and by RS, I don't mean a couple of tabloids notorious for their lack of proof reading and inadvertent Americanisms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof reading, yes. EEng 21:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge that Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary has sulfate, sulfide, sulfur, and lists sulphur as obsolescent, so as Reputable Source we have to go with it, but it's contrary to my experience. I wish I had the latest edition of Selinger's Chemistry in the Marketplace. My venerable 2nd edition is sulphur everywhere. Doug butler (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Australian spellings 

message: Should spelled (AmE) and spelt (BrE) be included here? Similarly dreamed/dreamt, although I expect that word's use would not be that common. Bazonka (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the spelled/spelt difference should be included, but both dreamed and dreamt are used in the U.S.  – Corinne (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea how spelled/spelt is spelled/spelt in Australia, NZ, Canada and SA? I don't have access to the necessary dictionaries. Bazonka (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macquarie Dictionary (Australian English) lists dreamed, dreamt, spelled, spelt as all acceptable, with no preferences. Microsoft Word's dictionary for Canadian English also accepts all four (but perhaps it has spelt in mind). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelt (the spelling version as well as the grain) is in the Canadian Oxford, but it's certainly not very common, at least in my experience. I can't remember ever noticing its use. Meters (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Canadian spelling has so many double l's, that I expect that people opt for "spelled" for consistency. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelled/spelt 

message: Why is "grey" listed as a spelling used in the U.S.? I've always seen it spelled as "gray", and we were specifically taught that "gray" was the correct spelling in the U.S. I think if the "grey" spelling is used, it is an import or an affectation.  – Corinne (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED, as far as I can tell (the OED is sooooo complicated), lists both forms for both Am. and Br. usage. In general with stuff like this, just write what you think is correct, and later some knowitall will come along and make it what he thinks is right. It's not usually worth worrying about.  EEng 18:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm American and use "grey".  Gray is a surname.  :-/   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm American and use "gray".  Grey is a surname.  Not that what individual editors say matters.  :-} --A D Monroe III(talk)  02:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray/grey 

message: I need help, we are debating whether gage or gauge is more appropriate under a Canadian wiki page. The context is "To gage/gauge interest and help determine..." Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gauge" per the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Meters (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gage vs gauge- Canada? 

message: Can we add fulfil (Br. Eng.)/fulfill (Amer. Eng.) and enrol/enroll to the English Spelling Comparison Chart?  – Corinne (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEBOLD. EEng 18:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: fulfil is already there, but follow the advice of the inestimable EEng and boldly add enrol. Robevans123 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  English spelling comparison chart 

message: Could someone tell me the correct British English spelling corresponding to American English "emphasize"? Is it "emphasise" or "emphasize"? I don't recall seeing "emphasise" anywhere.  – Corinne (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: British emphasise, American emphasize . In general Am. uses -ize, Br. uses -ise (but British usage is mixed on this, I should add). EEng 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: (after edit clash) "Emphasise" is regarded by many dictionaries as the usual UK English spelling, see here for an example. It is one of those words where the American spelling is gaining ground. I (as a UK english writer) tend to use "emphasize", but would not change "emphasise" if I came across it in an article. A search for "emphasise" on Wikipedia alone produces more than 9,000 results. Robevans123 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Depends on what you mean by "British", too.  Oxford University Press favours -ize (for words that have that variant, which some don't, e.g. advertise).  See Oxford spelling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasise/emphasize 

message: I think honor/honour should be added to the table, but I don't have easy access to all the relevant dictionaries to check its various regional uses. I know that "honor" is the standard US spelling and that "honour" is the standard UK/commonwealth spelling but what I'm less sure of is which if any regions should list the other spelling as an acceptable alternative. Any suggestions for how to proceed? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of word variations and the region they pertain to would be nice. American and British are pretty straight forward but how does Canada or other English regions spell honor ?  - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Canadian = "honour" as with all of the other or/our words. Strangely, Canadians sometimes also keep the u in "honourary", which no-one else does. The most common spelling in Canada in "honorary" which is the only spelling elsewhere. Meters (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for confirming that a reference list of spelling and uses would be a net possitive for many users :)   - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honor/Honour 

message: Hi, I'm looking for the Wikipedia guideline on words that have two or more common spelling variants that are not regional. As far as I remember it said that Wikipedia should not prefer one over the other if both were common in the sources, but should reflect the sources by allowing editors to use both. Can anyone direct me to where that guideline is? Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest approach, most of the time, is probably to consult multiple dictionaries (from multiple places) and use whichever the majority of them list as the main spelling. But be aware of terms of art – some spellings are exclusively used in particular fields, or may even make a difference between meanings.  E.g. provenance and provenience have distinct meanings in archaeology, paleontology, and related fields, even though treated as synonymous variants of the same word by some dictionaries. Hanged and hung have different meanings (if you're executed by hanging, you're hanged, while the picture on your wall is hung).  And so on.  Remember that dictionaries are extremely generalist and short-definition works that provide little in the way of depth or nuance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two or more non-regional spellings 

message: The MOS currently only has "jail" as the accepted spelling in New Zealand, however, it is coloured as if it follows the British spelling which also allows "gaol". I have found a few references to "gaol" and "gaolers" on New Zealand government sites, so it seems they also use both spellings. Would someone please verify this and make the necessary correction? I.e. either change the colour of the cell to match the US, or add the word "gaol". Danielklein (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd need to see some serious evidence that gaol is in  use by  sources in any dialect today before claiming it here.  That a dictionary still lists it as valid isn't evidence of actual currency.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 10:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaol in New Zealand 

message: The Australian Macquarie Dictionary preferres the termination -our in word like colour and behaviour but lists the termination -or as alternative. It lists -ise as the entry with -ize as alternative. Australian English, like American English, also preferres program in all cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:18e9:1501:7cb9:c5eb:c89b:dc8b (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no.  There is no reason that WP "must" be bound to some other lone publisher's preferences. See further up this page for detailed objection to taking Macquarie as if it were "official Australian English".  PS: "preferres" isn't a word in English (or even in French), so we have no reason to pay attention to what you're saying about a language you're mangling. WP:CIR.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Programme is very much still a vital preference in Australian English. Bananas in Pyjamas would be a children's television programme. You pick up a programme guide when watching a local play. The more general case such as government fiscal programme or programme of thought is more commonly called a program,that would be true. Wooblo (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. See the Macquarie Dictionary + Australian English. Program is the only spelling according the the Mac Dictionary. SHB2000 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A Wikipedia page on 'Australian English' is going to be as incorrect as this very page, where apparently 'liquorice' is not a prominent alternative to 'licorice' in Australia, which is empirically untrue, or 'jail' is an American spelling and not an English one from French. In the past hundred years, 'programme' has all but disappeared in the sense of a regime or system, and in the past twenty years 'programme' as a television show or theatre production have mostly dwindled, but their use is still alive by some theatre companies, news publications, and their historical use is still relatively recent. Wooblo (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian spelling must match the Macquarie Dictionary  

message: Buried in this review is an interesting discussion on coloration vs. colouration. I propose that is added here, as a universal spelling variant rather than regionally determined, pending some sort of consensus and presuming I'm correct (which I am, [lurches forward] fight me if you say different). cygnis insignis 04:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  coloration 

message: Gaol, Milliard, Trilliard, Quadrilliard, Shoppe, Aenigma, Amour, Oeconomy would have been the spellings of this. 124.106.130.227 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP isn't written in Early Modern English, and we also don't use milliard and other French numeric terms that once had some currency in English. So, this is not relevant to this page.  This is a guide on how to spell in Wikipedia articles, not an etymological history of quirks of obsolescent English dialect.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other variants? 

message: I call bullshit on the assertion that "ageing" is an attested variant in American English. --Khajidha (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's attested, but, yeah, it's too rare to include here.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aging 

message: I made this edit, because that statement gave the impression that is is okay to use that spelling in BrE articles (an impression heavily contradicted by this discussion), but it was reverted and I was asked for a link to a consensus for it. I provided one, but it was again reverted on the basis that it is in common use. In a related discussion, consensus seems to be that it is no longer in common use. So, I need to ask: was my edit a good one? Adam9007 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording you changed in your first edit had been stable for a while, so ideally needs a consensus to validate your change - the discussion you linked to is more than 22 months old. The other current discussion relating to the same spelling that you mention is still ongoing, so it's probably best to await the outcome of that before making any further changes. (Note: I have reset the wording to the previous status-quo pending a new talkpage consensus.) -- DeFacto (talk). 19:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Gramme 

message: Interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Question about MOS:TIES. If I wrote an article about a bug endemic to Mexico, the US and Canada, could I write it in Commonwealth English? Probably better to contribute there than here. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, no. That is, yes, you can write it in non-North American English (or even in Greek for that matter). But it would need to be re-done in US or Canadian English, and it would be disruptive to edit-war against someone doing that.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does MOS:TIES apply to living things? 

message: Currently, MOS:TIES only applies to articles with strong ties to nations, but MOS:DATETIES allows dates to be written as per the customary format used in that context (e.g., DMY dates for articles on the US Military). My proposal is to allow the same thing for MOS:TIES where it makes sense. For example, ISO, the IEC, the UN, and the BIPM are all international organizations which publish in a designated English variety (Oxford spelling in these cases), so those WP articles and any others relating to those organizations should be allowed to be written in the customary variety as per MOS:TIES policy. This is already somewhat implicit policy given that the MOS:TIES text refers to the Institutions of the European Union article being written in a specific variety, but I'm proposing it be made explicit. Thoughts?
PS: Why in the world does MOS:TIES say that the Institutions of the European Union article should be written in Irish or Maltese English, especially when the EU uses British or Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much no one watchlists this page. Try proposing this at WT:MOS.  In response to your PS question: it's because English is an official language of both countries, and they are (and for the foreseeable future will remains) EU members, while the UK voted to "Brexit".  It may not be the best rationale in the universe, but it is a rationale, not just random nonsense. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow customary spelling as part of MOS:TIES 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Wikipedia:-IZE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#Wikipedia:-IZE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:-IZE" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#Archaic spelling reads as follows:
Should we reconsider this guideline? It seems to be at odds with general Wikipedia practice: Such works as Opticks, Poor Richard's Almanack, The Compleat Angler, A General History of the Pyrates, and even the MOS example of Daemonologie are usually referred to by their original titles rather than modernized. Phleg1 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernizing archaic spellings in titles of works 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ship-owner § spelling. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:Ship-owner#spelling|Talk:Ship-owner §&nbsp;spelling]]

message: The coloured table section is a neat, concise summary of some differences. I can't help but comment on the futility of the dichotomoy: British or American English, though. At one rank in the table, the supposed American colour is applied to New Zealand, yet in the same rank the US assumes the British colour. So why was that colour ascribed the US English title then? 
A lot of dialect animosity between Commonwealth and US English is often fuelled by misinformation, like with -ize words and aluminum. -ize words are decently expounded upon in this article, but a word such as 'aluminum' is pragmatically a US word yet not technically, as it was invented by an Englishman on a Latin pattern. In fact, many of the apparent US words are immemorial Latin-influenced versions, whereas the apparent English words are modern French-influenced versions. 
Not a lot of convolution is wanted on a Wikipedia page, I get that. But in my opinion the the titles for the colours in the aforementioned table are oversimple. It should be a First Alternative/Version (often Commonwealth English), a Second Alternative/Version (often US English and miscellaneous non-Commonwealth states), and the third colour for a confluence of the two. Wooblo (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on coloured table 

message: I've done a little update to some of the Australian words, as per the current usage per the Macquarie Dictionary. Can give refs if needed. SHB2000 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some updates 

message: Would USA prefer agism over ageism? 114.108.202.223 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agism? 

message: I'm quite befuddled by this page, which is where I ended up after searching for guidelines on use of regional spellings. I would expect an article at this location to cover guidelines and conventions for which spellings to use, rather then a mere reference to regional variants. I eventually discovered this is covered in part at WP:SPELL, but in detail at MOS:ENGVAR. 
Maybe this is just a general issue with the organization of the MOS, but I don't see why the intro of this article wouldn't cover this subject in summary or at least a link to the MOS:ENGVAR coverage, which is necessary reading before making use of the reference content here. I think the included MOS \{\{style\}\} template further confuses this by listing these sub-pages but not making it clear that there is also a primary page which should be referenced first, nor listing its sections, which really should be treated with as much if not more due importance than the sub-pages. (This is not helped by the new stylesheet which hides the TOC by default whilst showing the \{\{style\}\} "TOC" even on the page in question.)
Only after bouncing around these various pages did I finally notice there is in fact an existing link to the relevant section in the disambig section at the top; but it is not the first such link of the several included (I'm not clear why MOS:LEADSENTENCE is linked at all?), and more importantly I don't think I am unrepresentative of the typical reader in noting that my eyes usually glaze right over this "fine print" section unless I find the article content is obviously unrelated to the topic I was expecting: so, I would persist in arguing this is insufficient.
I may open another discussion on the deficiencies of \{\{style\}\} template, but in any case I think it's prudent that this page direct editors to MOS:ENGVAR in the introductory text, not merely a disambiguation. Walkersam (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference but no guidelines? 

message: It might be me being stupid, but I can't tell any difference between the spellings of jail (aside from British and South African which includes the less commonly used gaol). If I am seeing it correctly, then what is the point of that row?-FusionSub (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The jail row