Talk:weekness

RFD discussion: October–December 2018
Very uncommon, to the point that there are only three genuine misspellings in the BGC hits. Until Rua decided to remove it, explicitly said "Common misspelling", and that has been our usual guide for when to keep them around. This would not meet that standard. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are a few uses: ; ; ; ; ; ; . --Lambiam 08:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In modern usage this seems to me to be a lame and non-notable misspelling, mostly committed by non-native writers or, um, people who can't spell. There are some hits from old texts too. I couldn't comment about historical usage. Mihia (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK lameness and lack of notability are currently no impediment to inclusion. Many if not most mispelings are committed by people who can’t spell.  --Lambiam 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we should include only notable ones. If we included every misspelling that can be attested half a dozen times then surely it would get ridiculous. "Definately" should be included IMO as it is a very well-known mistake that we see often. "Weekness" not so much, I would argue. Mihia (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to weakness, not really worth an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not massively keen on automatic redirects, even less so where they involve spelling mistakes. If typing "weekness" takes you to "weakness" with no further information, it would be possible for someone with poor spelling, or poor English generally, to assume that "weekness" is just another way of writing it. That's assuming such a person even notices the redirect. Mihia (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have as a misspelling of  (thankfully), In that case, delete completely. DonnanZ (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we need to revisit misspelling criteria, with a view to changing policy. Who is on board? How could we begin: perhaps categorising the existing misspelling entries to find out which ones are typos (mokney for monkey) and their commonness? Equinox ◑ 10:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Really nobody else thinks this is a problem? Equinox ◑ 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What policy changes do you advocate? The current policy according to CFI is "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". For misspellings I think this is adequate (albeit perhaps the wording could be finessed), and differences about whether a misspelling is "common" can be brought to an appropriate forum. I agree that typos, as opposed to misspellings, should generally be excluded, unless they have attained special status (e.g. teh). Perhaps this could be explicitly mentioned in the CFI. Mihia (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I advocate the policy that misspellings should have 10 citations spanning at least 100 years, deleted on sight if no citations provided, must be used at least twice in a single work (to avoid typos). DTLHS (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support that. I particularly like the 100 year span--I think it's important for a misspelling to be persistent in order to be catalogued. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster defines typo as “an error ( as of spelling ) in typed or typeset material”. As the proposed policy considers some misspellings not to be typos, what notion of typo is meant there? Ignorance? --Lambiam 08:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that definition isn't quite complete; our entry for typographical error is better. I would say a typo is a kind of misspelling, but many misspellings aren't typos. For instance, perserverance and expatriot are IMO clearly not typos. A typo might be caused by a slip of the fingers (for example, the first time I wrote this sentence my finger stayed too long on one key and wrote "sliip" instead of "slip"), but not by a misconception or uncertainty about how the word is spelled. Slips of the fingers aren't worth recording in a dictionary, but reasonably widespread misconceptions about how words are spelled might be. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am on board to change the misspelling policy, I don't want to include them at all. - TheDaveRoss  12:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One possible criteria for deletion could be that if we are the number one result on Google for a term it can be deleted (e.g. aboriculturist). - TheDaveRoss  14:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with DTLHS’s proposed criteria. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If a word has a ”normal” entry but also occurs as a misspelling (e.g. ), I think the criterion for including that misspelling should not be very stringent. Likewise if the misspelling is intentional (e.g., and probably ).  --Lambiam 08:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone who is a weak speller, I appreciate having entries for common misspellings, but I don't think they need to be sitting in the main body of wiktionary. How about a common misspellings appendix, with links to the correct spellings? (And shouldn't this discussion be moved to the beer parlor? ) Kiwima (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Misspellings in the mainspace provide the maximum convenience for the user. The user lands on a page that tells them the form is a misspelling and at the same time directs them to the entry they were looking for. What more to wish? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For misspellings that are not seen as common, I would prefer a "Did you mean?"-type solution to this. This effectively already exists in the "closest match" list in the search dropdown. I presume that if weekness did not exist then "weakness" would be the first suggestion on typing "weekness". Having an actual page for these misspellings seems to me to be making too much of a big deal out of it, or giving them too much prominence. (There is also the potential issue that other systems indiscriminately pick these up from Wiktionary as real words, for example https://www.onelook.com/?w=allright&ls=a, though there is little we can do about this.) Mihia (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They may provide some marginal benefit to a type of user, but for all other users they are an inconvenience. Did-you-mean type solutions are significantly better, and are more in line with what the user would expect as normal behavior. - TheDaveRoss  12:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rare misspelling, per its frequency ratio of about 10 000: . Includable mispellings tend to have much less, say 1000. Calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013. Policy: WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, rare error. I agree clarification of how we handle misspellings/typos is needed. In citing the determiner they ("the, those"), we found some books which use the hundreds of times but also have one or two instances of they where the is expected, clearly a typing error, not a use of the dialectal form. Use of the is so extremely common that determiner-they din't meet even the most lax definition of a "common misspelling" or common typo, but other cases (Talk:licensize?) are thornier. Requiring that a spelling be used more than once in a work that doesn't also use the normal spelling in the same voice* would weed out (most) typos. (*But if the narrator uses the normal spelling but a character who speaks in eye-dialect consistently uses another spelling, that's OK for attesting the eye-dialect spelling IMO.) I'd suggest we draft a vote in which that rule and other rules like the 100-year one proposed above could be voted on (and pass/fail) independently. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)