![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article says "A typographical ommitting the word "not" in the sentence "thou shalt not commit adultry." This printing of the Bible has become known as the Wicked Bible."
Shouldn't "error" be placed between "typographical" and "omitting?" Also, "omitting" is spelled incorrectly. 75.72.7.108 ( talk) 22:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the contributor that made this subheading. "Correcting" it to The best thing ever! somewhat nullifies the parody that it was representing. If you're going to correct it to a more "useful" subheading, it should probably be "Ridicule by excessive, sardonic mispelling and exclamation mark replacement" or some such, as the "correct" text is of even less informational value. As it's a subheading, I really do think it is quite OK to leave it as the parodied text. I am reverting for now. Let's discuss it here. -- mordemur 14:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was a bit too enthustiastic about fixing typos. The present headline is great. Lapinmies 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that the “taht si teh bset thign evar!!!!1111oneoneone” paragraph was the best thing (evar?) on Wikipedia. I don't think it should have been wiped off this way. -- Manfroze 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Yahoo page capture is representative of a typo. If it was the result of an accidental cut'n'paste then maybe so, but it's more likely to be the result of a double entry in a backend database. mordemur 03:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else refer to cut'n'paste errors as paste-o's? Much different than a typo. Myth010101 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this poem widely propagated in email. Is it encyclopedic enough to mention in this article?
Hello, I am not a native speaker and I don't get the nursery rhyme. Could anybody explain it to me? Maybe explaining it in the article might make sense too. Thanks -- 80.139.74.66 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be included in the definition of a typo. Typos, as I see them, are purely mechanical mistakes; whether they originate from a slip of the fingers, or a dodgy keyboard. Someone who types "there" instead of "their" is not making a typo: they're simply a person who either does not know how to spell, or if they do know, the difference is not ingrained in their mind enough for them not to make the mistake. This is different from a tpyo. EuroSong talk 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We could change the article's title to Typographical eror for a subtle self-reference. We would show Britannica that wikipedia is wittier! Rintrah 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt we need citation for that. But hey, maybe that's not treu.
Edit: true* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 ( talk) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus, did typographical errors even exist before the advent of the internet? Typonese is barely even a word. Davilla ( talk) 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Although I'm not a particularly religious man, including "Bible Errata" in the "Other Articles" section seems a bit dubious to me...thoughts? Contributions/206.108.5.92 ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Michael ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Suppose I come across a problem in an article that is clearly wrong and needs to be fixed
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ytpo. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Opty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palinarus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus Daniel Case ( talk) 06:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Typographical error →
Typo – Per
WP:COMMONNAME, the common name is typo (a shortened version), not "typographical error" a clunky form which is rarely used. Typo is also rising in popularity as the preferred term according to this
[1] Google Ngram.
I-82-I |
TALK 23:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe the idea here was to convey the difference between deliberate, intentionally modified spellings as opposed to erroneous outputs. However, the usage of "p0rn" doesn't really qualify as obfuscation in my opinion, for the following reasons:
Keeping in mind that the intended objective of edits being discussed here should be to contribute to the improvement of the respective article's content, I'm not sure whether it'd be more appropriate to: 1) choose a different example word, 2) choose a different derivative of the same example word (such as "pr0n"), or 3) change its classification to something else that it does appropriately qualify for, etc. Being that I'm a newcomer to the contributor mantle, I'd like to abstain from boldness and instead defer to the more experienced community members present.
Some time ago I searched for the first reference to an often cited printing error anecdote about Matthew 7:3. It has to do with a missing initial "o" in the Latin expression "in oculo" in the eye, this should make the problem clear even to some readers less familiar with Latin or old French. I'm not sure the example should be added (I find biblical examples entertaining, but they are already well represented, which is probably justified by the shear amount of printed material, at least in older times; not sure how trustworthy this story is anyway). What makes it relevant is that it's attributed to an error in the printing process (missing/poorly readable letters on the beginning of a line or something like that) and not to a typing or typesetting error (albeit blaming the "lazy typographer" could be seen as an easy way to get out of trouble in this case). This fits well the given definition of typographical error (probably less so for typo), but it's somewhat underrepresented in the article, "printing error" also redirects here. Funny stories of arguable taste apart, my questions are if there's an article I'm missing dealing with errors in the printing process (or meaningful/deceitful ones in particular, loose analogues to “atomic typos”; a clearer link/disambiguation to it would be probably helpful in this case) and, if there isn't, if it should be created or if this article should better cover this topic. Personuser ( talk) 01:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion the duplication of the definite article "the" is the most common typo. Does anyone know why particularly this mistake happens so often? 46.114.142.36 ( talk) 23:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Tot he. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 7#Tot he until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my
talk page
15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article says "A typographical ommitting the word "not" in the sentence "thou shalt not commit adultry." This printing of the Bible has become known as the Wicked Bible."
Shouldn't "error" be placed between "typographical" and "omitting?" Also, "omitting" is spelled incorrectly. 75.72.7.108 ( talk) 22:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the contributor that made this subheading. "Correcting" it to The best thing ever! somewhat nullifies the parody that it was representing. If you're going to correct it to a more "useful" subheading, it should probably be "Ridicule by excessive, sardonic mispelling and exclamation mark replacement" or some such, as the "correct" text is of even less informational value. As it's a subheading, I really do think it is quite OK to leave it as the parodied text. I am reverting for now. Let's discuss it here. -- mordemur 14:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was a bit too enthustiastic about fixing typos. The present headline is great. Lapinmies 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that the “taht si teh bset thign evar!!!!1111oneoneone” paragraph was the best thing (evar?) on Wikipedia. I don't think it should have been wiped off this way. -- Manfroze 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Yahoo page capture is representative of a typo. If it was the result of an accidental cut'n'paste then maybe so, but it's more likely to be the result of a double entry in a backend database. mordemur 03:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else refer to cut'n'paste errors as paste-o's? Much different than a typo. Myth010101 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this poem widely propagated in email. Is it encyclopedic enough to mention in this article?
Hello, I am not a native speaker and I don't get the nursery rhyme. Could anybody explain it to me? Maybe explaining it in the article might make sense too. Thanks -- 80.139.74.66 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be included in the definition of a typo. Typos, as I see them, are purely mechanical mistakes; whether they originate from a slip of the fingers, or a dodgy keyboard. Someone who types "there" instead of "their" is not making a typo: they're simply a person who either does not know how to spell, or if they do know, the difference is not ingrained in their mind enough for them not to make the mistake. This is different from a tpyo. EuroSong talk 11:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We could change the article's title to Typographical eror for a subtle self-reference. We would show Britannica that wikipedia is wittier! Rintrah 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt we need citation for that. But hey, maybe that's not treu.
Edit: true* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 ( talk) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus, did typographical errors even exist before the advent of the internet? Typonese is barely even a word. Davilla ( talk) 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Although I'm not a particularly religious man, including "Bible Errata" in the "Other Articles" section seems a bit dubious to me...thoughts? Contributions/206.108.5.92 ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Michael ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Suppose I come across a problem in an article that is clearly wrong and needs to be fixed
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ytpo. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Opty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palinarus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus Daniel Case ( talk) 06:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Typographical error →
Typo – Per
WP:COMMONNAME, the common name is typo (a shortened version), not "typographical error" a clunky form which is rarely used. Typo is also rising in popularity as the preferred term according to this
[1] Google Ngram.
I-82-I |
TALK 23:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe the idea here was to convey the difference between deliberate, intentionally modified spellings as opposed to erroneous outputs. However, the usage of "p0rn" doesn't really qualify as obfuscation in my opinion, for the following reasons:
Keeping in mind that the intended objective of edits being discussed here should be to contribute to the improvement of the respective article's content, I'm not sure whether it'd be more appropriate to: 1) choose a different example word, 2) choose a different derivative of the same example word (such as "pr0n"), or 3) change its classification to something else that it does appropriately qualify for, etc. Being that I'm a newcomer to the contributor mantle, I'd like to abstain from boldness and instead defer to the more experienced community members present.
Some time ago I searched for the first reference to an often cited printing error anecdote about Matthew 7:3. It has to do with a missing initial "o" in the Latin expression "in oculo" in the eye, this should make the problem clear even to some readers less familiar with Latin or old French. I'm not sure the example should be added (I find biblical examples entertaining, but they are already well represented, which is probably justified by the shear amount of printed material, at least in older times; not sure how trustworthy this story is anyway). What makes it relevant is that it's attributed to an error in the printing process (missing/poorly readable letters on the beginning of a line or something like that) and not to a typing or typesetting error (albeit blaming the "lazy typographer" could be seen as an easy way to get out of trouble in this case). This fits well the given definition of typographical error (probably less so for typo), but it's somewhat underrepresented in the article, "printing error" also redirects here. Funny stories of arguable taste apart, my questions are if there's an article I'm missing dealing with errors in the printing process (or meaningful/deceitful ones in particular, loose analogues to “atomic typos”; a clearer link/disambiguation to it would be probably helpful in this case) and, if there isn't, if it should be created or if this article should better cover this topic. Personuser ( talk) 01:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion the duplication of the definite article "the" is the most common typo. Does anyone know why particularly this mistake happens so often? 46.114.142.36 ( talk) 23:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Tot he. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 7#Tot he until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my
talk page
15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)