Do we think it is necessary to use "sic", every time there is an old spelling, like "sate" on page 52? Please give your opinions. Dick Bos (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we are going to use sic at all, then yes, use it for archaic spellings as well as misspelt words. My 2¢. Moondyne (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is not really the proper template to use for archaic spellings: "The word should actually be a typo. The purpose of the template is not for indicating a different or obsolete spelling, nor for attaching definitions, synonyms, commentary etc. to a word" (Template:SIC). For archaic spellings, we should be using Template:Tooltip, linking to wiktionary, or leaving the text un-marked.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- True, the template {{SIC}} is for typos and errors, but {{sic}} can be used in a text where it is felt that an editor might think to change a perceived error. The latter template leaves no visible trace in the displayed text, and would be better than {{SIC}} in the specified instance, since it is not in fact an error. However, as Doug has pointed out, either {{tooltip}} or a Wiktionary link would also work in a situation such as this, where an archaic word or word form is used, and which might confuse the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)