The major complaint (in Wiktionary history) about a heading/template such as this, is that it is slightly too generic. I think there should be another parameter here, indicating what region or dialect the term is used in. Simply following the template with another sentence would leave it formatted correctly, but many people are confused by such a layout. And the information is more than slightly relevant; I'd say required. --Connel MacKenzie 16:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
{{alternative spelling of|foo|US|lang=en}} should also categorize in Category:U.S. alternative spellings or Category:U.S. English alternative spellings instead of Category:English alternative spellings.—msh210 18:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Shouldn't we indicate the gloss (in most cases) whenever this template is used? Would another (required) parameter help to this end? For example {{alternative spelling of|potato|gloss=A plant tuber often eaten as a starchy vegatable.}}. Existing uses of the template without a "gloss" parameter could then be added to a category, or have a visible warning that the gloss is missing. Glossless cleanup category would be better, I think. --Connel MacKenzie 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This needs the |lang= in the same format as {{plural of}}. Would the lang= parameter adding person do the honors please? --Connel MacKenzie 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
lang= to direct the wikilinked term to the appropriate language section. __meco 10:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)...the first one, the entry pointed to. Why isn't the wikilinking hardcoded in the template code? --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There should be some red text printed such as "Error: Cannot be an alternative spelling of itself", for examples such as this (which I just fixed).--Greenrd (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It says "Spelling is the way words are formed with letters" but the example give is second-guess where the difference is -
Perhaps this could be clarified with more examples? General Vicinity (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)