User talk:Buybooks Marius

Hi, thanks for your contributions.

Your entry œconomy is interesting but contentious. The only correct spelling of this word is "economy". Although "œconomy" is etymologically more precise, this spelling is not (or no longer) used. It is therefore misleading to say it is a "better" spelling. Note that the use of "better" makes the entry is point-of-view, and Wiktionary aims to be non-point-of-view. &mdash; Paul G 17:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The spelling "œconomy" can be found in Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary. In it it says "Œconomy See Economy". I have changed my definition to "An alternative definition of economy" in order that it might not show a point of view.


 * Thanks for this. Nevertheless, it is an archaic spelling.  It would be preferable if you could create entries for the modern spellings and note the old-fashioned spellings on that page (see oology and haematite for example).  I will be changing the pages with archaic spellings to redirects to the new spellings - you might like to the same thing.  &mdash; Paul G 10:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The use of æ in English is not the issue, it is making Wiktionary the most practicle, useful and complete resource it can be. Almost invariably there is a modernized spelling (economics vs. œconomics, orthopedics/orthopaedics vs. orthopædics).  With this sentiment in mind, the current best practice is to include in articles like economics any alternative spellings which are not signficantly differently defined, and then add a redirect from that alternative spelling.  I don't think that anyone will dispute that the inclusion of an alternative accepted spelling is valuable, but adding a second article or using an alternative spelling which is not the predominant spelling (either in British English or American English) isn't beneficial.  An article in this vein which has been mishandled in my opinion is eon/aeon/æon; three words which are virtually equivalent, however none of them reference one another. - TheDaveRoss 18:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is the best approach to take. &mdash; Paul G 11:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)