Template talk:less common spelling of

RFD discussion: November–December 2022
Pointless duplication of uncommon spelling of. It is implausible that a spelling can be significantly less common ... while not being rare or uncommon in absolute terms. If it's significantly less common, that makes it uncommon. Theknightwho (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: 1) 'If it's significantly less common, that makes it uncommon': False. "less common" indicates relative frequency whereas "uncommon" indicates absolute frequency. It is not possible to mark "less common" spellings as "uncommon" if they are in fact common, merely less common than their variants. More follows. Put differently, spelling X is uncommon if it is uncommon in the whole corpus. By contrast, spelling X is "less common spelling of Y" if X is much less common than Y in the corpus. Let's take the case of "antiimmigrant": that is less common than "anti-immigrant" per but it does not seem to meet "uncommon"; and even if it did, if spelling X is common and spelling Y is 2 times less common, Y may very well be also common, depending on whether it happened to cross the threshold for "common" vs. "uncommon". The phrase "less commonly" is used e.g. by Merriam-Webster in its "publicly" entry:, "variants: or less commonly publically". In that entry, MWO says that "publically" is less common than "publicly", not that "publically" is "uncommon". As something of an aside, one particular problem with "uncommon" is that it has no numerical definition and I have no idea how it is being determined; I suspect it is applied very inconsistently. By contrast, "less common" can be determined by an arbitrary threshold of relative frequency, say 2x, and one only needs to consider the two terms being compared. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already explained how "uncommon form of" and "rare form of" are to do with relative frequency anyway, because they’re inherently comparative. You manage to use a lot of words here, but don’t address the fundamental point. Theknightwho (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to explain the obvious is hard. I don't really know how to go about it. "rare form of" is equivalent to "(rare) alternative form of". It does not capture relative frequency. To me, "X is a rare form of Y" implies "X is rare". When "X is rarer than Y" (or "less common"), that does not yet mean "X is rare". My interpretation is confirmed by the fact that rare form of categorized terms into CAT:English rare forms, which it could not do if it captured relative frequency only. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the reason you aren’t explaining is because you aren’t understanding my point: I have already explained how "uncommon form of" and "rare form of" are to do with relative frequency anyway, because they’re inherently comparative. Try again. Theknightwho (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should antiimmigrant categorize into CAT:English rare forms? And whenever X is rarer than Y while being its variant, should X categorize into CAT:English rare forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What would an absolute standard for rarity even look like? It would just end up polluting the uncommon and rare categories with technical terminology. Theknightwho (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a yes? An absolute standard would pick some arbitrary level of prevalence and everything under that prevalence would be "rare". That arbitrary level could be bound to some term that could then be used in comparisons in Google Ngram Viewer. If this is not what is meant, then I don't know what "rare" is supposed to mean for a term that is not a variant of another term. For such a term, rare relative to what? Appendix:Glossary says: "A term or sense that is attested but not used commonly either in spoken or written language, even less so than uncommon terms": That sounds like absolute frequency against some corpus-global threshold, not like frequency of X relative to its alternative Y. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you presenting a false dichotomy between categorising any less common forms in CAT:English rare forms and using this template?
 * Also, the definition of rare as not used commonly ... even less so than uncommon terms is not evidence that it refers to absolute rarity, because you're assuming that "common" also refers to absolute rarity. That is circular logic. Theknightwho (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Will you answer my questions? I have another example: if two surnames are "common" and not "rare", it is well possible that one is twice as common as the other one. That relation does not make any of them "rare". A surname is rare if it is rare among surnames; a term is rare if it is rare among terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still presenting a false dichotomy between categorising any less common forms as rare and using your template. Those are obviously not the only two options, and it is insulting that I need to explain that the reason I didn't answer your question is because it was a crap question based on an obviously flawed premise. One which I already explained was flawed. It doesn't appear you are remotely interested in trying to understand my point of view, either, as you haven't even attempted to address the points I've raised. Theknightwho (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicating the function of . No point having so many shades of meaning. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete wholeheartedly. Only used on 79 pages and is a case of pointless hair-splitting (on top of which in practice I have no idea what sort of criteria would distinguish "uncommon" from "less common"; it's likely to be totally arbitrary). Benwing2 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW I am amazed at your willingness to continue arguing with Dan. To me this sort of stubborn back-and-forth is about as pleasant as a root canal and seems to accomplish about as much as banging one's head against the wall. Benwing2 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 I think a lot of it is that I object on sheer principle to someone trying to brute force their way all the time, seemingly without any underlying principles, and without making any attempt to even attempt to understand where others are coming from. It's become a bad habit of mine at this point, though. Theknightwho (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, and schwarzes Loch is a compound. Not. I am reminded of the words of Mglovesfun expressing his despair. Banging against the wall is exactly what I am doing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything, Dan? Have you really not noticed how you're constantly arguing with everyone? It's certainly not just me by any stretch. Theknightwho (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing against apparent supermajority does not need to be in vain, e.g. when my wording of Option 3 in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes passed, against Sgconlaw above, who claims that "consensus" is "usually" understood to be 50% majority. There is hope. One must never assume that because one is a lone voice, one is thereby wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "less common" does not imply "uncommon". "X is less common than Y" if it is, say, 2 times less common or more. By contrast, "X is uncommon" if it is uncommon in the corpus. Let's say we have 5 degrees of corpus-commonness. Let's call degree 1 "rare" and let's call degree 2 "uncommon". Then, a term or spelling of degree 4 is "less common" than a term or spelling of degree 5, but it is not "uncommon"; the same is true for a term of degree 3. If I am the only one to see that, that would be truly sad. I know exactly what the criteria for "less common" are and I have just specified them; I have no idea of a specific test for "uncommon". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not believe the rare and uncommon labels are, should, or meaningfully can be understood in an absolute sense that's independent of the frequency of the parent term, so I don't accept the premise on which this one was created. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

RFD deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be restored until it's removed from the pages where it's transcluded, since deleting it breaks them otherwise (e.g. un-Christian). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've undeleted it for now. I've removed it from some pages, but there are ~50 to go. Theknightwho (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just going to file a bot request about it. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sgconlaw Not all of these can be replaced with rare spelling of, because Dan used an obtuse method of determining what counted as "less common". Some of them are not that rare, so they need to be done manually. Theknightwho (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Also, looking at some of the entries on which this template has been used, it seems that should be used. To me, words like un-Christian and unChristian (and *unchristian, if it were to exist) don’t differ in spelling, only in form. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)