Wikipedia talk:Lists of common misspellings

bot
Hi, I've made a list of articles with common misspellings as of the last time Google updated its index database dump. Perhaps checking these articles by hand isn't as easy as using an automated spelling bot, but I think this could be useful finding articles that need attention. If you agree, feel free to help. Any other suggestions are welcome. Wmahan 00:16, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * Update: I updated the list so that articles are sorted by the misspelled word; perhaps the new format will be more compatible with the work of people who go through this list when correcting articles. Wmahan. 01:17, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

androgenous/androgynous
Listing androgenous as an incorrect spelling of androgynous is risky. Both are valid words, and though closely related, have different meanings.
 * Thanks for pointing out the distinction; I have commented out androgenous. Wmahan. 18:36, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Wired-in searches
I tried to wire in a search for a word, but only got the external link to work (clumsy). Is there some concern or evidence that if the whole list was wired, it actually slow Wiki down as hundreds of editors rush to search for thousands of misspellings? Am I treading a well-worn path? Hu 07:26, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Realease-based words
I found least two hundred of these errors, and it's noteworthy typo, intentional or not. So I have added. (whatever, UTC)

Spelling correction by hand

 * 1) Spelling correction needs to be done one word at a time, because there are so many special cases, deliberate errors, exceptions, ambiguities, proper names, different languages and new usages.  A bot is unlikely to understand all this, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this talk page
 * 2) There are too many possible errors to create a list with them all
 * 3) If you come across what appears to be a misspelled word, it makes sense to search for other occurrences, and if there are only a few other occurrences, eliminate them then and there
 * 4) [ developmet] (development) (000013 matches)
 * 5) [ developement] (development) (245274 matches)
 * 6) [ development] (development) (247033 matches)
 * 7) [ sic] (sic) (2522 matches) As mentioned elsewhere, sic is not a good searchable word to mark deliberate errors, since it has too many false matches.
 * 8) [ sicsic] (sicsic) (0006 matches) sicsic is a better search word than sic as it is not a real word in its own right.
 * 9) [ ssiicc] (ssiicc) (0001 matches) ssiicc is also a better search word than sic as it is not a real word in its own right.
 * 10) [ (sic)] "(sic)" (2522 matches) The wikipedia search function does not appear to understand parentheses or brackets.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 August 2007

Shall we remove "Accidently" as I found out is is correct.
"Accidently" is something I have been focussing on here for years. A few weeks ago I started to notice that the red squiggly line no longer comes up for it and when I looked it up I found out that it is because it is a correct spelling: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accidently Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd support this. I wonder if articles like these have a guideline on what to do when an error becomes so commonplace it stops being an error. Slamforeman (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously these things vary from one English speaking country to another. In this case I have a brand new laptop, have just installed Chrome, and set its language version to Australian English (my native "tongue"). While I'm not, my spellchecker is perfectly happy with "accidently". HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's still a good entry, because an editor may well consider "accidentally" to be superior, as it is much more common and many people still believe "accidently" is wrong. The list is not a declaration that a spelling is wrong, but rather a tool for editors who want to make certain corrections. Dictionaries, by the way, don't arbitrate what is correct; they just tell you what is in common use.  And Wikipedia's standard isn't "many people are fine with it" -- it's "this is the best possible wording."
 * Wikipedia doesn't have any guideline on how to recognize when the best possible English usage has changed. It's just one of those things editors have to fight over.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Very interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter, I think that is most likely the best answer. I'd be remiss if I didn’t say I’m a fan of your work. :) Slamforeman (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)