Talk:approprimate

RFD discussion: July–October 2020
Delete as a rare misspelling: not found in GNV:. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as currently defined. This is implausible as a misspelling, so if it's not an alternative form or a different word, it's probably a typo. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy dedicated to "typos" in WT:CFI, only to "misspellings": WT:CFI: "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." There is a non-passed vote on proposed regulation of typos, one that was largely unnecessary since most of what the proposers would consider to be typos can be easily deleted as rare misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested, the vote is here. PUC – 13:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of how we end up treating them, and even irrespective of the extent to which we can distinguish them in practice, it is essential that we make a conceptual distinction between typos (accidental typing errors made by people who know how to spell the word) and misspellings (spellings that the writer mistakenly thinks are correct). Mihia (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Essential for what? Not for users who want to avoid misspellings: does anyone aim to write in misspellings but not typos? Not for policy and not for mainspace markup, as far as I can see. The vote (Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos) contains evidence suggesting at least one author considers typos to be species of misspellings. Again, nearly every typo is a rare misspelling and can be deleted using the current policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see too many opinions and too little evidence and too few references. Comment is free, as they say. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A fair amount (a majority?) of contributors appear to consistently make a distinction between typos and misspellings, even among those who voted against the above proposal. Don't you think it's unfortunate that this isn't reflected anywhere? PUC – 11:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Majority does not science or proto-science make; and we already had a look at evidence. I would really prefer if people meet me on evidence and such, not opinion. Even below, we read "rare error", which means "rare spelling error", and if we realize what stands for, we get that spelling error would intuitively be referred to as . Thus, the notion that typos are not misspellings seems bizarre, although someone might want to try to maintain that kind of non-intuitive terminology. However, if someone proposes that common typos should have a different template or different output, e.g. via en, I will probably not oppose; but I think it is pretty useless since, to repeat myself, nearly every typo gets deleted as rare misspelling anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct that in common parlance typos are a kind of misspelling, but I believe that in previous discussions here the distinction has been made as I represented it. Whatever terminology we use, there is clearly a fundamental difference between the two things. Mihia (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There sure is a notional contrast, but why would it be fundamental and why would it matter for our purpose? Since, what dictionary users find offline in books and online in web pages is typeset or typed text rather than hand-written text; when that text contains a spelling error, what should it matter for dictionary searches whether the error originated during the author's writing down the manuscript or during the typesetter's turning the manuscript into typeset matter? (Of course, in modern times, the manuscript is often typed directly.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We're trying to describe the language. A misspelling is a part of the language in the minds of those who use it- such things can and do replace the "correct" spelling. A typo is usually an artifact of the keyboard layout and/or the neuromuscular coordination of the typist. It is no more a part of the language than an OCR error, which, by the way, the average online reader is far more likely to encounter than a misspelling or a typo (don't even suggest having entries for those- that would be cliinilo). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a thoughtful response and thank you for that. However, it does not seem so simple. First, I would say that it is primarily words that are part of language, not their spellings. But if we focus on spellings as we probably should in discussing this matter, I would argue that spellings are primarily the things produced outside of the minds, and less things inside minds. Spellings in typed matter are both produced by minds and imprinted on minds. And I do not see why we should consider a language to consist primarily of things in the minds and give things outside of minds (auditory utterances, manuscripts, typed matter) a secondary role. If we allow that a language consists both of things inside minds and outside minds, then common spelling errors in typed matter (whatever their origin) are part of the language. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On a different note, it may not even matter whether spelling errors are part of language (or are considered to be); spelling error entries could just be pragmatic search aids to improve the usability of the language documentation project. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, rare error (whether we want to view the error as a typo or a misspelling, it is too rare to include). - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Typing error, not misspelling. Equinox ◑ 11:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)