Talk:List of English spelling reform proposals

IPA
Why not count International Phonetic Alphabet? It's already familiar from dictionary usage. I find it much more readable and plausible than the spelling proposals listed in the article. --JWB (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the IPA is not specifically aiming to reform english spelling. It aims to write down the way to pronounce words for all languages. And also, it's not a spelling reform plan perse since it's a tool for linguists and other language pros. It might seem easy to grasp its basics but in fact it,s an extremely complex linguistic tool. Nobody should think seriously of proposing it as a way to reform spelling in any language. --AlainV (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at English spelling reform, at least one English spelling reform proposal, OR-E, actually is a subset of IPA. --JWB (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you might consider adding OR_E here too, eventually. I won't do it, becasue the OR-E article hasn't been wikified enough. It's full of extremely complicated linguistic terms which should be explained or linked to other articles or both. --AlainV (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger
The article English spelling reform lists 10 proposals, while the article List of English spelling reform proposals adds only 3 proposals more; the latter could easily be added to the former article (which incidentally is not exceedingly long). Apcbg (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)