To correct inconsistent spelling, do not stop after highlighting one form. First group the forms that refer to the same thing, then decide the preferred spelling and its exceptions. Looking only at “email” cannot tell you whether “e-mail” remains elsewhere. The useful unit is the candidate set, reviewed under one decision rule.
This article covers discovering candidates, selecting a preferred form, and preserving justified exceptions. Judging rhetorical repetition, interpreting numerical search totals, and executing replacement are separate jobs.
Knowing two variants does not mean the manuscript is consistent
A writer can know two forms and still mix them in the manuscript. You may have chosen “email” while an earlier chapter still contains “e-mail”.
An alternative you have not recognised is different: it cannot yet become a search term. Keep those cases separate.
- Known candidates — forms you can name and check together
- Unknown candidates — forms first discovered during rereading or review
Consistency work does not require knowing every variant in advance. It requires adding each discovered form to the same candidate set and applying the set's decision across the manuscript.
Stage one: use selected highlighting to notice one exact form
When an editor marks identical text while a word is selected, you can see how that exact spelling appears nearby. rune Studio's product documentation describes identical text being highlighted about 0.3 seconds after selection.
What this exposes is the selected string itself. Selecting “email” does not prove that the different string “e-mail” is absent.
Stage one's job is to turn a spelling that caught your eye into a candidate. Read the nearby contexts and decide whether it refers to the same entity you are standardising. This is not a decision about rhetorical repetition; it is a decision about whether the form belongs in the comparison set.
Stage two: build the candidate set and decide the preferred form
Create one set per entity or term. For example:
- email / e-mail
- website / web site
- Tiaris / Tialice
- 12 pm / 12 p.m.
Choose the preferred form before editing. Consider an existing style guide, an official product or character name, quoted material, and deliberate voice differences. Proper names and quotations may remain exceptions, so write the exception rule before mechanically standardising anything.
Once the set is defined, use a general search function to find each candidate and read its context. You may search each form separately or use a query that includes alternatives. The question is not which count is larger. The question is whether each result refers to the same entity, is a justified exception, or needs correction.
Use a word list as a memory for the candidate set
rune Studio lets you create purpose-specific word lists and add words. In the development-build command-line verification, adding a list and then a word made that word appear in the listing. The verification also confirmed an operation for choosing an active list, including choosing none.
Within that confirmed scope, the list can serve as a record of the candidate set. Separate character names, place names, and specialist terminology by purpose so that months later you still know which forms must be compared.
Do not assume a particular on-screen result merely because a word appears in the list. Make the final consistency decision from search results and their contexts. That keeps “the candidate was recorded” separate from “every inconsistent occurrence was checked”.
A four-field spelling decision
Record only four fields for each set:
- Entity — what the term refers to
- Preferred form — the normal body-text spelling
- Known alternatives — the forms to search
- Exceptions — quotations, official names, dialogue, or another justified condition
For example: “Use ‘email’ in body text; preserve ‘e-mail’ inside quoted source text.” One line lets another editor make the same decision in the next chapter.
The order for correcting what you find
Do not perform a bulk replacement as soon as the candidates appear.
First separate exceptions. Check official names, quotations, and deliberate distinctions in voice.
Then mark only occurrences that conflict with the preferred form. Exclude identical text used with another meaning.
Finally search the whole candidate set again. The aim is not merely to see the preferred form; it is to confirm that no non-exempt alternative remains.
This division gives each tool one role: selected highlighting is the entrance for noticing a form, the candidate list preserves the decision, and search checks the manuscript as a whole.
Who this suits, and when another method is better
It suits long projects with many names or specialist terms. When time passes between chapters, a recorded candidate set and preferred form make the decision reproducible.
A very short piece or a word used once may need only a reread. If the problem is stylistic repetition rather than spelling, do not expand a variant set; compare what each repeated phrase contributes to its sentence.
Summary
- Knowing two spellings does not prevent them from being mixed in one manuscript
- Selected highlighting is an entrance for noticing the exact selected string
- Group known alternatives, then decide the preferred form and exceptions before editing
- The verified rune Studio word-list operation can preserve the candidate set as a record
- Make the final decision from search contexts, separate from repetition judgment and replacement execution
As a first step, select one spelling you are unsure about and write its known alternatives beside it. Decide the preferred form and exception rule in one line, then check that candidate set across the manuscript.
See the current product scope on the Rune Studio product page.
