Wikipedia talk:Typo Team/Archive 2

Arctic

Arctic has other non-proper noun uses, so I don't think it should be changed. BJ^Talk 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Work Completed Archive frequency

Can the Work completed section be archived every month? Just a thought as the section has become too long. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree! It's definitely too long. However, I am a newbie, so I can't take care of this myself. I think it's getting to be a real pain to scroll down the whole colossal list, somebody please archive it. Sue H. Ping 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) --Galaxiaad 04:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. :) Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should further divide the 'work completed' section into month or weeks. It would be much more organized that way. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox and Category

The userbox when added on the page, doesn't categorize a user as a member of Typo team. I am not really WP savvy, but I think that it may be a good idea. We can have a category for Typo Team Members and users can directly be listed if they add the userbox. Just a thought. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so amazingly long, but done. :) --Galaxiaad 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

this may take several months but the real thing is about the completion of the work.so just think over "how much time does the work take to be completed--203.130.8.4 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)"'''fargafvas

None

"None were" outnumbers "none was" 1016 to 510, but I was taught that "none were" is wrong and "none was" is correct. Comments, please, before I go changing anything. Philip Trueman 11:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"None" can mean "note one" or "not any," so "none were" is fine if that's the sense you mean it in. According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, (© Random House, Inc. 2006) "none has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century." I'd go with that. Bruce P.

Clean up articles and fix typos?

I searched for amoung so that I could change it to among. There are about 600 articles when I search, so there's plenty of typo correcting to be done, but many of these articles are not encyclopaedic, or notable, or they contain many other errors.

Is it worth fixing the typo and leaving the rest, or should I be adding a tag to the article and letting other people know that the article needs improvement? DanBeale 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion about fixing other errors in the article: it just depends on what you feel like doing. I only read through the whole thing if it looks interesting or full of egregious errors (unless it looks like vandalism or copyvio, in which case I usually open it in my regular browser (I use AWB) to check out the history). But I think you should definitely add appropriate tags (while you fix the typo, of course... why not?). I've found quite a few uncategorized (and non-English, and so on...) articles while looking for typos, and there are other teams for fixing that... ;) We can't do everything. Just my 2 cents. (Also, have you looked into AWB? It fixes typos and some other stuff (semi-)automatically in whatever article you're editing.) --Galaxiaad 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont

Thinking about tackling some of the "donts" and adding the apostrophe. Did a quick search and found numerous articles titled this way. Anything that can done about those, or should it be left alone? --Csodennc 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I take a zero-tolerance aproach to punctuation; don't, won't would'nt, shan't, etc is the correct useage. (from my Oxford Dictionary of Style & Usage)--dick 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't any contractions not found inside direct quotations be expanded per WP:TONE? No contractions in formal writing, right? --Joshua Crowgey 09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the above not be "wouldn't" instead of "would'nt", dick? Was that a genuine typo from one of our own members? Something tells me we are going downhill from here.... =P--SteelersFan UK06 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Practising, Recognised

Any thoughts on those two spellings? Getting over a thousand results for both. Are they acceptable in certain areas? My knowledge is to spell it Practicing and Recognized--Csodennc 06:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Both are acceptable in British English --Thiseye 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• These are correctaccording to the Oxford Dict. of Style & Usage--dick 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that in British English, "practice" is the noun, "practise" the verb, while American English admits only "practice" for both verb and noun.--BillFlis 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To hyphenate or not to hyphenate,

(let me copy from my posting at WP:HELPDESK, and replies there)

that is the question I asked here a long time ago, when the answer was "go for it". But I just keep seeing so many places where hyphenated words just aren't. Maybe because I'm looking for it, but it seems like more instances are missing than using. What I'm whinging about are things like "mini series" and "non Serbian". Those are just the ones in the last hour, others have read much more strangely. I tried looking for style guides, but ended up only with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) which doesn't fit the bill. Can you point me to any reassurance I'm not fighting against some (un)written rule, e.g. colour/color? (and yeah, I could go another few months on another "go for it" :-) Shenme 06:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! (I agree both of those should be hyphenated; please proceed.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't it "miniseries" (without a space or a hyphen)? I'd say consult Strunk's Manual of Style if you have access to a reasonable library, or if that is not an option consult a dictionary. I'm sure a lot of these cases aren't half as ambiguous as they seem to some people. According to the rules I learnt about compound words "non Serbian" should have a hyphen. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what do y'all think? Am I crazy? Is it worth changing these strange constructions, or maybe even noting the more frequent occurring pairs? Shenme 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree that the examples you list should be hyphenated. Incidentally, the other example you compare it with (color/colour), far from being the subject of an unwritten rule, is in fact dealt with at WP:ENGVAR in some detail. Best wishes, --Guinnog 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I kind of slurred the "(un)written", and I've actually mentioned it to a few editors, though I couldn't cite them the actual WP:ENGVAR, thanks! Shenme 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Miniseries" is a compound word. Compound words are sometimes hyphenated, sometimes two words, and sometimes one word, not according to any particular rule but just custom. (Personally I would use "miniseries", as I've already indicated, but "mini-series" looks OK to me while "mini series" is weird. It's kind of just a matter of preference though.) British English tends to use hyphens in compound words more often ("to-day" anyone?) than American English.

For "non-Serbian" you definitely want to use a hyphen. I feel like there's a trend to leave out hyphens, especially in things like "award-winning". The Wikipedia article for hyphen is pretty good at describing different uses, I think... --Galaxiaad 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, people. I was feeling lonely, staring at all those gap-toothed articles. ;-:) Shenme 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Team list

Hi. Should I auto-magically be added to the team list once I add the userbox to my page? If so, I must have done it wrong, hehe. --Segaba 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see I'm on the category list, just not on the project page. No big whoop. --Segaba 15:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand there I found the notice on the category page to add myself to the project page manually. Obviously I have a sharp eye, and will be a vital cog in the anti-typo machine... --Segaba 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardized edit summary

I just joined, but how would everyone feel about using a standard edit summary like: Typo correction - [[Wikipedia:Typo|You can help!]]

Other maintenence groups use this sort of thing, and it could help promote the project. Fishal 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I already use one when I do typo work, but it'd be nice to have it on the front page. Crystallina 03:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fishal, it would be a good way to spread the word. I think that the example that he has given is actually simple and effective enough to be perfect! --SteelersFan UK06 06:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The template I've been using is usually similar to this: "Spelling: innacurate ==> inaccurate. You can help!." That way it's more specific about which exact error was changed. Crystallina 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the [[Wikipedia:Typo|You can help!]] works. I've used it on pretty much every typo that I've corrected on here since I first saw this comment.--SteelersFan UK06 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A drive some of you may be interested in

Cross-posting this here since it intersects nicely with this project. I'm trying to get together as many editors as possible for a cleanup drive starting June 21. The link's currently located here: User:Crystallina/Gnome Week although once it gets off the ground I might take it to Wikipedia namespace as an essay. Anyway. If you're interested, we need all the help we can get. Crystallina 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: What's a "cleanup drive" and why does it need to get "off the ground"? As much as cleaning up the drive appeals to me, can't we clean up the ground as well?--BillFlis 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A cleanup drive is basically a site-wide cleanup movement. In the same sense as Wikipedia:Article improvement drive. And to get off the ground just means to get started. Crystallina 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

English dialects

Note that the endings "-ize" and "-ization" are acceptable in both British and American English. The suffix -ise is more common in Commonwealth usage than -ize, but both spellings are correct. The use of -ize/-ise should remain consistent throughout a page.

What about australian english? In Aussie english, "-ise" is never spelt with a z. Lord fabs 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you get supersised at MacDonald's?--BillFlis 13:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get wize to your jokes. You won't be getting a pay rize this month.

With all seriousness though, I'm assuming that the situation in Australia is pretty similar to British English. It may be "correct" to see -ize, but you rarely will. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette question

For the sake of speed and simplicity, I've shortened my comment on a corrected page to a mere "typo," rather than spelling out what I've corrected. I figure anyone can check the history to see what I've done. Is that acceptable etiquette? Kyriosity 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming all you're doing is correcting typos, I really doubt anyone will get offended by that. Seems fine to me! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 14:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just been hitting the "m" for minor edit on typos.

On another topic, I like to change British spelling to American spelling when the topic is strictly American. If there is an accepted spelling -- that is one that is a link with Brit spelling that has the word colour, in a strictly American site, then I like to use the divider "|" to make it appear to the reader as American spelling--example: color Brian Pearson 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just have a boilerplate that I copy/paste and just plug in whatever I'm fixing. For instance Spelling: alcahol ==> alcohol. You can help!. Crystallina 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Crystallina. I think we should be adding what we changed, and the note about WP:TYPO. It doesn't really show that this group is doing anything if we just leave "Typo", and nothing else. Shout from the rooftops! --SteelersFan UK06 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but at times there are a number of typos. I usually make changes to all of them in one fell swoop, using the "edit this page" link instead of editing one section at a time. It goes faster that way. Also, there are times when there are other minor changes as well, so it can get complicated. If it gets complicated, I may only put down "created link >> Bill Heatley" or whatever.

If I do substantial cleanup I'll usually mention it in the summary, but if I go to fix one typo and then find a few more, I'll just leave the boilerplate summary. Crystallina 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aah, you make a very good point. That specific edit summary is not very appropriate when more than one edit is made. Whatever the situation is, apply what seems best. I'm sure you will make the right decision, every time! =] --SteelersFan UK06 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Move it! (please)

The Members section is getting a bit big. Hell, its basically half the page. Can we move it to its own subpage and leave a nice mesage telling people to go to it? That would be nice i think. I would do it but i am currently in the process of a few other wikipedia tasks. If someone could that would be great! =] --SteelersFan UK06 01:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be so bold as to do that. -WarthogDemon 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How's this: Wikipedia:Typo (members)? -WarthogDemon 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this would be better since it's a subpage: Wikipedia:Typo/Members. That good? -WarthogDemon 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just got an edit conflict message when replying to your last comment. Was about to tell you about subpages, but it seems you already know :P thank you for your help! --SteelersFan UK06 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I try to learn from my mistakes and clean them up fast. =) -WarthogDemon 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's only what this whole project is about! =] --SteelersFan UK06 05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Pledge section of this Project page

The Pledge section is not required. It will only add to the clutter of the page, making the page unnecessarily bulky. I suggest that it be removed.

Townblight 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps create a subpage? Though then it might look like an extra Participant page. And merging would be unnecessarily tedious. Dunno. I'd go either way. -WarthogDemon 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go with removing it. I think its unneccessary and looks sort of cluttered. I mean, the pledge is told to us, we fix typos, its in the project. We don't need to pledge HOW we are going to do it. Personal opinion....remove it altogether. --SteelersFan UK06 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

acessdate and accesdate

These 2 words are commonly misspelled when creating references using the 'web cite' template.[1] [2]. Could someone help me go through these. Maybe by using some sort of bot? Mahanga^Talk 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for WP:AWB. I'd be happy to take it on. If you want to share the load, let me know. Gaius Cornelius 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Job done. I only found a handful of instances. -- Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "accesdate" and "acessdate" are always misspelled. Why is this topic misspelled?--BillFlis (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiTypo firefox extension

I've created a Firefox extension for easy typo fixing. http://paulwagener.nl/wikitypo

Spelling Correction

I've edited a page (Annie in Wonderland) which includes verbatim sleevenotes which contain the original spelling errors (e.g. "accoustic" for "acoustic") and loose typography. Several users have since "corrected" these errors, in good faith, obviously, and I've reverted them. I can imagine this is not the only article which has intentionally mis-spelled words, and I've left a note in the source text. Is there a way of flagging these so it doesn't happen again? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no general way to do it. Some of those edits were done using AWB - perhaps you could consider adding {{nobots}}? Philip Trueman 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered the same - looking for "should of" or "is been" and finding them in quotations, song titles etc, which I'd like to be able to flag up as "this is OK", so that next time I can avoid them using something in AWB. It would be good to be able to sort of "the must of the grape" from the sort of "must of" which needs fixing. Could we develop a template so that {{ok-quote|accoustic}} would generate a hidden comment saying <!-- This use of "accoustic" is within a quotation and should not be corrected -->, and perhaps a handful of related circumstances? PamD (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Further thought - surely using {{nobots}} would be overkill, if it would prevent anyone using AWB to edit the page for any purpose. That would cause far more problems than it would solve. PamD (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Having now had a look at the Annie in Wonderland article, I'm in sympathy with those who want to change to correct spelling, as it doesn't look like quotes. Ah, had an idea. See you at the page concerned. PamD (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can add a [sic] tag to words like that. It's found here. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sophus. I'd already discovered {{Sic}}, but wouldn't want to sprinkle an article like that one with pedantic-looking "sic"s. I think we need an "invisible sic" template to help editors in cases like this! I use an informal equivalent myself now, when editing "should of" etc I add <!-- OK here: don't correct it--> between the "should" and the "of", and then although Google finds "should of", AWB doesn't, which helps in editing. But a general template would be more useful! There's an example in Jack Beeson where one of the songs is "You Should of Done it blues". (My Google search already excludes the most common legitimate pairings of the two words, "should of course" and "should of necessity"). PamD (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

travelled vs traveled

Any preference for either travelled or traveled? My spell checker underlines double-l travelled, but it seems acceptable to some people. Dictionaries are not clear. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the former because the latter is WRONG and you all need to learn English English ;). I think it's British and North American usage respectively. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help needed?

I wouldn't normally do this, but here's an article that's beaten me. Art_History-Renaissnace The spelling error in the article name is a clue to the state of the rest of the article. (I found it when I searched for 'come form', to change to 'come from'.) There's too many spelling errors, typos, and general incoherence for me to do a sensible edit on. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've corrected the Title error and have fixed common Spelling error's. Terra ^{What do you want?} 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots

Do we not have any bots that can look at the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings page and do a patrol? I've had a play going through a letter of the alphabet and correcting all the typos I find. This was fun, but I can see it getting pretty old pretty fast. There are some interesting places which could cause headaches for bots like Zeebra, the name of a Japanese hip hop artist. This pops up in several places, particularly on records where he has collaborated. I'm sure that with clever programming or a wise set of guidelines some sort of automated process could be created. Orinoco-w (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I see in the Archive, the bot question has been asked by Gflores in 2005 and subsequently (in 2006) answered (by the same user) with the suggestion of using the Autowikibrowser. Orinoco-w (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other magic wiki-words?

I categorized quite a number of pages the other day, simply by fixing the word 'category' ! A large number of pages had accumulated attempts at adding [[:Category:Xxxx]], but where the magic word had been misspelled, and thus the page didn't get put into the desired category. I especially liked 'Catgory', and 'Vategory' and all the mis-keying variations.

Can anyone think of other magic wiki-words that people might have mistyped, that might not be immediately and obviously wrong? I haven't gone looking for 'templete' and such, but you get the idea. Hey, I never thought I'd be categorizing articles - what might you be able to fix? Shenme (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of the main project page

There's some confusion regarding the name of the Type Team. The project page is simply "Wikipedia:Typo" but we call it the "Wikipedia Typo Department" in the introductory sentence and yet we for the most part call ourselves the "Typo Team". I think changing the project page to "Wikipedia:Typo Team" makes sense and that we should eliminate references to the "Typo Department". Jason Quinn (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed reference to the "Wikipedia Typo Department" and re-worded the opening paragraph. I would like the change the project page to "Wikipedia:Type Team" but I haven't yet fully explored the ramifications. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely it should be "Typo Team", not "Type Team"? I'll correct the project page. PamD (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, was this something to do with Muphry's law? PamD (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. What can I say? Anyway, care to comment on the renaming of the project page to "Wikipedia:Typo Team"? I think it would make sense to do it. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved