Talk:Typographical error

Ironic Typographical Error

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)[reply]

teh best thign evar!!1!one!1!!

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 don't want to be a wowser, but doesn't this section border on trivial? Rintrah 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Yahoo graphic

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)[reply]

"Candidate for a Pullet Surprise"

I've seen this poem widely propagated in email. Is it encyclopedic enough to mention in this article?

Nursery rhyme

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)[reply]

I've included a link in the article. OK? Gnusmas 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. --80.139.105.58 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just added a link. IMHO BargainChecker is a poor choice of site to link to as it basically just fills the Google search results with scraped listings from eBay. I've added a link to Missing-Auctions.com (no relation to me) as it offers weekly emails of brand names that are commonly misspelled as well a video tutorial and an eBook. IMHO it's a much better choice as it offers value to the user. Hope that's ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneCole (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"subconsciously typing a homophone"

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)[reply]

I agree with you and went ahead and changed that paragraph. I think the most important thing about a typo is that it's a type of mistake specific to using a keyboard, like writing 'thw' for 'the' just because 'w' is next to 'e'. No one would make this kind of error if writing with pen and paper. Tocharianne 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

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)[reply]

Bad idea. I don't think Wikipedia condones those kinds of intentional self-references. ZtObOr 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In instant messaging, users often send messages in haste and only afterwards notice the typo. It is common practice to correct the typo by sending a subsequent message where an asterisk precedes or follows the correct word.[citation needed] For example:

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)[reply]

What a lousy article

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)[reply]

Of course they did, and if you see something questionable which is unsourced then fix it. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Errata?

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)[reply]

Are informal derivations—thinko, spello, scanno—worth mentioning?

Michael (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite meaning to "sic".

Suppose I come across a problem in an article that is clearly wrong and needs to be fixed

but I don't know how to fix it
must leave for later and/or for some other editor
wish to mark the problem with some non-word string, like "sic", but different,
so that I can find it again,
but what string "_____" ??
Then, later on, I would be able to search for "_____" and return to the problem(s).
I could leave a message in the Talk page, but searches for "_____" do not seem to search through the search pages, which is unhelpful.
At the moment, a search for "sic" returns 22,548 which is far too many to search through.
It would be best if all wiki editors used the same string "_____"
For example, there is an article Randy Moss with a faulty infobox, which was marked "Infobox Confused", but when returning to the problem, a search for "Infobox confused" found so many matches (5172) that is was not possible to located the problem article again, hence the need for a non-word search string "_____".
Fortunately, the string "Infobox Confused" could be found in my "Contributions log", but other editors do not seem to be able to search other editor's logs.
So what is a good search string for "_____".
It should be a non-word to minimize the number of false matches.

Tabletop (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ytpo" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

"Opty" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

"Palinarus" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Requested move 23 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). I-82-I | TALK 01:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem completely uncontroversial; it should be discussed. For example, "typo" may be too informal for an encyclopedic tone. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "typo" too informal for Wikipedia? Shortened versions of words that are more commonly used (typo is obviously more commonly used) are preferred by WP:COMMONNAME. A good example is the Mueller Report (example on the COMMONNAME page). While it may be less formal than Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, it is a far less commonly recognized name than the Mueller Report. The Google Ngram also shows that "typo" is increasingly more common. COMMONNAME is clear, this should be titled "typo". I-82-I | TALK 01:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Mueller Report" is not a shortened version of a word. It is just an alternative name that is more common and easier to remember without being excessively colloquial. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quite WP:COLLOQUIAL version of the term. Also, I looked at the Ngrams evidence, and a lot of the "typo" results are from bad OCR of the word "type" or from picking up parts of longer words hyphenated ("type- casting" "typo- graphical") at the end of sentences. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How does WP:COLLOQUIAL apply here? This is not a hyperbole, or an unnecessary acronym/abbreviation. This is a WP:COMMONNAME that is far more common in usage. I-82-I | TALK 06:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same reason its Confidence trick not "con", Carbon copy/Blind carbon copy not "CC/BCC", Not safe for work not "NSFW", Submarine not "sub", Influenza not "flu". In many cases, the longer form provides excellent WP:NATURALDIS, as well. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dictionaries list "typo" as an informal abbreviation of "typographical error". Station1 (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether all typographical errors are actually typos. A "typo" to me feels like something that happens on the keyboard (and therefore is something of the digital age). A typographical error seems broader, including typesetting mistakes for example. Kaĉjo (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The proposed title is the common name, regardless of how "informal" some people feel the term is. The term is widely used in reliable sources including the BBC The Guardian the New Yorker The Washington Post and The New York Times for starters. For those who think WP:COLLOQUIAL says we shouldn't move the page, I suggest you read what that section actually says. (And of course, feel free to explain why an explanatory supplement to the MOS should trump our policy on article titles). Calidum 14:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed name is more common, but also more informal. The two terms are not always interchangeable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia policy is clearly on the side of this move. We use the most common name for article titles, not the official or formal name. And it's clearly the common name, even the opposes are admitting that it's the common name. There are many examples on Wikipedia where we use a shortened, more informal article title: "Polio" not "Poliomyelitis", "United States" not "United States of America", etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:TONE ("Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone.") / WP:FORMAL ("without ... conversational tone") / WP:EPSTYLE ("The tone, however, should always remain formal"). See also Register (sociolinguistics). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you linking to the same essay using three different shortcuts. Why not go for all of them? Calidum 17:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I linked to three different places in the article (with quotes), and it's marked as an explanatory supplement, not an essay. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Typo" is not "too informal", but more importantly it is much less clear than "typographical error".---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom. No one uses the term typographical error, and for those saying it's informal, even my teacher uses the term. ^{the ultraUsurper} 03:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That piece of information is meaningless given that we don't know in what register your teacher speaks when he uses it. For those who think "typographical error" is too formal, it appears in Friends episode S08E23-24. Kaĉjo (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistent. Typo is definitely more commonly used, so we shouldn't have the article at Typographical error but proceed to use "typo" throughout the article. If it's too informal for the title, it's too informal for the prose; on the other hand, if it's good enough for the prose, then it's good enough for the title. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There are many articles where the full name is used for the title but a shortened version is used in the body, especially after first mention. Examples include people where surnames are used after first mention (Obama), towns and cities that are mentioned without the state (Akron), or organizations referred to by acronyms (FBI). Station1 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In biographical article titles, we state the full name at the start of the article, and then use just the last name as shorthand in the rest. Same with organization abbreviations. Its the same case here... explain the "full" name in the title (for easy disambiguation) and the lead line (for the readers), but then use the shortened form later. -- Netoholic @ 01:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Netoholic has already explained it. Srnec (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree with the last sentence in "'Intentional' Typos"

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:

The act of obfuscation implies the intent of reducing or restricting the communicative value of a message. This is true for both its disambiguated form in natural language, as well as its software-centric vernacular usage; however, in the case of the latter, there is an additional target attribution defined: human recipients.
The usage of "p0rn" likely qualifies under systems of modified spellings in its use of a character replacement, but in this particular example the replacement character is selected purely for its glyph reflection characteristic and does not effectively diminish the actual communicative value of the word.
The citation being referenced touches upon the intentional use of misspelling as a means of circumventing automated chat filters. While I'm not familiar with whether there is a more suitable vernacular in that particular use case (colloquially or nomenclaturally), the intent there is solely to mitigate programmatic or syntactic parsability; in other words, there is no implicit impact to the message's readability toward human recipients (if anything, the intent would arguably be to preserve the latter while achieving the former).
The cited source does not actually mention the word "obfuscation" or its other forms.

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.

Printing errors

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)[reply]

the the

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)[reply]

Repetition of a single world happens quite often (my guess is that it has to do with "forgetting" where you were left, because of stopping typing/writing in the middle of the sentence or distraction; it may also be more difficult to notice while fast reading). It isn't a typical "mechanical" typo and I think it's also a common copyist error, sometimes in relation with line splitting. If sourced it may actually be worth adding to the article. As for "the", it's a frequent and short world and is strongly tied to the noun, which may also play a role. Personuser (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's called dittography, here's a ref from textual criticism. Guess lot of this could apply to typoes, but here it would be better using something less related to copying and more to printed or digital texts and I have trouble finding something as sistematic. Personuser (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tot he" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]