Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos

• To find: insource:/U\.S\.A[^\.]/ (~4500 hits)
• Regex Search: U\.S\.A[^\.]
• Regex Replace: U.S.A.$1

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb, your link appears to be wrong. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It works here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Should it instead be changed to U.S.$1 per MOS:NOTUSA? GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in some cases, but in others, it's part of an official name/abbreviation, e.g. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/1239101494, @Onel5969 "fixed" "entirely eliminated" to "eliminated" in the phrase "not entirely eliminated". I do believe this is incorrect, since removing "entirely" makes it sound like it was not eliminated whatsoever rather than only being eliminated in some instances. I suggest the rule here be changed to at least not remove "entirely" after "not". 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Since "eliminated" means "entirely removed", it seems redundant to write something that means "not entirely entirely removed". GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial elimination is a thing. So clarifying that something was not entirely eliminated makes perfect sense. See [1], definition a for example (the act of discharging or excreting waste products from the body). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how my initial comment did not make it clear. If you say that a certain class of objects has not been eliminated, that kind of leaves open whether some instances have been "entirely removed" or not. If you say that it has not been entirely eliminated, it is clear that some instances have been "entirely removed". 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just corrected all 12 instances of "Flowing plant(s)" to "Flowering plant(s)". Some had been up for years.Admittedly only 12, but no false positives. Worth a rule? ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already have a rule that covers "of of" with one intervening space. But I've just dealt with a large number of "of of"s with two intervening spaces. Can the code be tweaked? ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: It looks like the "Duplicated words" rule already covers duplicated words separated with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 spaces. I just edited Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada and it changed "of of" (with two spaces) to "of". GoingBatty (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure why I noticed so many but thanks for the reassurance about the code. I may look again in a few months to see if another batch emerges ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my recent edit to the O2 (UK) using AWB, AWB's typo rules changed "Telefonica" to "Telefónica". My edit was reverted by CalebEvans, who wrote in their edit summart "Telefonica is legally registered in the UK without the accent". Therefore, should we remove this rule? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just patrolled "in not known" and changed 15 out of 17 either to is unknown or is not known, the other two are in quotations. One example had been up since 2023 so i suspect we might not yet have a rule that covers this? N.B. this one came from User:Phlsph7/AI spelling and grammar suggestions for vital articles. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]