Er, so which one of these is it gong to be? The two are mutually exclusive. Wikipedia:Redirect says redirects should go for "Other spellings, other punctuation" so that is policy anyway. Wikipedia:Standardise spellings has been rejected. So, er, what is your point? Dunc|☺ 12:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I re-read this proposal several times and I STILL haven't found the proposal. In my opinion, this problem still needs to be addressed, although a good option still has yet to be presented.
Juppiter 18:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The search engine problem can be easily fixed without changing the pages at all. It's a simple matter of having multiple spellings for words in a database and searching for all versions of a word when one is searched for. Misspellings could be handled by the same system. Once this is done, the other million and one problems with the search engine can be fixed... matturn 05:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this is being made into such a huge issue. Retain MOS:TIES, but in the case that an article doesn't have any real ties (science, etc.), use Oxford spelling. It's the most etymologically correct, most neutral, most international version of English used by almost every international organization. In terms of vocabulary, keep the current policy where you follow the standard that's already been established in the article. Supporting multiple variants of spelling is absolutely foolish in my opinion. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)