Talk:likker

Spelling
Regarding the question "is sense #2 really a standard alt spelling?": Is it possible that the spelling is obsolete, archaic, nonstandard or something in which case there should be a label like   or another template like   ? -80.133.96.13 14:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Is likker (sense 2) an eye-dialect spelling of licker (someone or something that licks)? Then should it be ''2. (someone or something that licks) ''? Or is it an eye-dialect spelling of likker (eye-dialect spelling of liquor)? Then should it be a single meaning like ''1. or  or simple be a single meaning like 1. ? In the entry liquor there then could be a section ===Alternative forms=== with  * ''. -80.133.96.13 15:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely., which sense of did you mean when you wrote “alternative spelling of licker”? If you meant “one who licks”, we probably need a label; if you meant “eye dialect spelling of liquor”, it is redundant to sense 1. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it probably should be "eye dialect spelling of licker"(but then the 1st sense is necessary because licker is itself an eye dialect spelling). By the way, most "misspellings" are actually nonstandard alternate spellings or archaic spellings(diverse was once spelled "dyuers"; some was once spelled "sum", "sume", "summe", "somme" and "som" in addition to the standard spelling[and dyuers other words were done the same way]).  JustinCB (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand it correctly.
 * "likker" is an eye dialect spelling of both "liquor" and "licker"(which is itself an eye dialect spelling of "liquor").
 * , thanks for answering. I am going to remove the separate definition since both essentially represent an intentionally non-standard spelling of the same word. You are free to dispute that, but consider the ambiguity experienced by readers directed from likker to licker. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)