Category talk:English alternative spellings


 * This category totally reinforces the misunderstanding I've been warning about for years that one spelling is "standard" and the others are "variants". I thought our official policy is that all variants are equal. In fact these templates and categories are usually placed to match the POV of which editor adds them. To back this up I've just come across a couple where which one is marked as the variant does not agree with any of the authorities I've checked. I've just added a couple of Dictionary notes sections to such articles. &mdash; Hippietrail 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see somebody has added explanatory text to this category but it only partly addresses the problems:
 * "Words in this category are alternative spellings" - no explanation is given for what "alternative spelling" means. It's not a set phrase in English and has always been a source of misunderstandings here so clearly different users will read it differently.
 * "For inclusion in this category, both spellings must be considered correct" - "both" implies there will be two and only two spellings. The first word I checked from the category, "aether" has four other spellings and it is not alone.
 * Of the five spellings of "aether", three are in this category: only those which are stub alternative spelling entries. None of the words with full entries that I've checked so far are in this category. This further reinforces the misunderstanding that there is a standard form vs. alternative forms despite the wording to the contrary. Is this on purpose? Surely if all forms are equal all forms must go into the category.
 * The wording informs users that all forms are equally correct but it is not so simple. Many forms are correct in some countries and incorrect in others. Some forms are definitely obsolete and are never used anymore. Many forms are acceptable yet when you look at their entries or entries which link to them as alternative spellings they carry POV labels stating they are "former" spellings etc. This inconsistency is a mess. &mdash; Hippietrail 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your very keen comments. Forgive me for making a quick job of the category last night, I noticed it didn't exist despite having thousands of entries, and so created it quickly with little thought. All your comments here as well as on your talk page are very relevant. I've completely rewritten the category description and submit it for your consideration. Obviously I am not the arbiter of policy here, and you (and anyone else) can feel free to make any alterations you feel necessary. Thanks for all your great work :-) Language Lover 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Encyclopetey pulled the new description and moved it to Alternative spellings and replaced the category description with a link thereto. Language Lover 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need to settle policy before stating anything. This has been a long-running discussion/debate, and it's about time we had a policy page.  Once we know what the key points of agreement are, we can summarize them here.  It is terribly inappropriate, though, to put the lengthy policy text in a Category, since that's not what categories are for. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)