Last modified: 2011-11-29 19:18:22 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T3677, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 1677 - Add a spell checker with configuration files in wiki
Add a spell checker with configuration files in wiki
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Page editing (Other open bugs)
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 6 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: 3417 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-03-10 11:25 UTC by xmlizer
Modified: 2011-11-29 19:18 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description xmlizer 2005-03-10 11:25:59 UTC
The idea is to give to contributers if they want to, the ability to use a simple
spell checker, in order to give more credibility to wikipedia. The idea is to
make the configuration file of such tools in wiki so that it could be updated
and enhanced easily for all languages
Comment 1 Chris McIntosh 2005-07-26 21:06:52 UTC
I have wrote a plug in that fits nicely with Mediawiki. The concept was to not
make it solely work with MediaWiki, but a more centralized Spell Checking
service that can tie in easily with any number of apps.

Take a look at for more
information, and to see it in action.
Comment 2 Zigger 2005-09-11 13:37:34 UTC
*** Bug 3417 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Dori 2005-09-11 13:44:13 UTC
LQWiki also has a spell checker:

They're using version 1.4.9 but in the past when I've asked them they've been
willing to cooperate and put that in the main distro as an option if someone is
willing to work with them.
Comment 4 assafkat 2005-10-11 17:07:10 UTC
I think that the spell checker that design only for MediaWiki is bad idea.
Better idea is configuration file that link the MediaWiki into a site of
checking. The configuration file is necessary because the spell checkers of
English aren't working for others language like Hebrew.
Comment 5 Aron Rubin 2005-12-11 16:52:04 UTC
I have added a mediawiki extension to Chris McIntosh's base code. His code is
pretty universal and the only Mediawiki-specific component is the one I made. I
had to add a hook to EditPage.php but all that is in the package's README file.
The extension package is at:
This does not preclude a clientside spell checker and does not use more
bandwidth than people do using the preview function.
Comment 6 Aaron Schulz 2007-08-31 08:51:17 UTC
It's getting to the point where it's hard not to find a non-Stone Age browser without spell checking. Also, using those instead lightens load on the servers. I suppose someone can write an extension if they want, but it really wouldn't likely be to helpful. Certainly, I can't see much use going in the core code.
Comment 7 xmlizer 2007-08-31 09:31:04 UTC
I always like the US anglo centric view which tells that if you got it in english on your desktop everyone has...
There is more than 250 different languages and I don't think that there is such tools in those languages
More than that, it could be a parallel project to update such extension with wikipedia content
If your problem is to say that it is of high loads on the server :
1) first give some figures to demonstrate this assertion
2) if it is really a problem then we can think of a javascript extension or whatever. The problem will still remain : the dictionnaries do not exists for whatever language

So please, don't make this unlogical decision to simply wontfix this problem

Thanks for that
Comment 8 Rob Church 2007-08-31 10:14:27 UTC
You know what would be *very* nifty in theory, but in practice, probably awkward? Spell checking using Wiktionaries. I mean, that's what free information's for, right?

I agree with Aaron that most modern browsers implement, or have extensions for, spell checking, and often have a large number of dictionaries, although I'm not convinced that an effective extension couldn't also exist if so desired.
Comment 9 Chad H. 2011-11-29 19:18:22 UTC
I'm going to go out on a limb and say WONTFIX here. Almost every browser has this implemented by now, and I can't see us doing any better ourselves.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.