Template talk:nonstandard spelling of

Script
Look how bad sang looks, can we implement ? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! I just had a look at shi and had no idea what tones were in use until I moused over and looked at the link address displayed in my browser's status bar.  This is unacceptable.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is the sc= parameter is not overriding the script selected by the template based on the lang= parameter. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed by Yair rand. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: October 2016–February 2017
Let's get the discussion started and let us have it on record that I disagree with the existence of this template. I do not know of any discussion that clarifies what "nonstandard" is supposed to mean. And I think our readers are better off without this template, but I may be wrong.

To clarify, I propose to deprecate the template and remove it from all entries, not to physically delete it. Let us keep page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is supposed to mean . --Dixtosa (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with a merger into proscribed (both the categories and the labels). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be better than nothing, but "proscribed" seems a bit too prescriptivist to me, as well. A somewhat relevant discussion: Template talk:proscribed. In that discussion, some people draw a distinction between nonstandard and proscribed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * True descriptivism must include prescriptivism. If we really want to document how language is used, we must also document how people of a certain level of education will avoid using in certain formal situations, because they know it is "wrong", but they may still use  because it can be seen as humorous and is used in many set phrases in American English. This is all due to prescriptivism, but it our job to cover it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with these formulations, especially that true descriptivism must include prescriptivism. But I think I see what you're getting at. Nonetheless, snuck is not labeled nonstandard, and it says "snuck was originally limited to a few dialects, but is now very widespread (especially in American English) and is recognized by most dictionaries". I would have expected that if anything were labeled nonstandard, ain't would be it, but there we go, you think that it is not nonstandard. Again, I don't even know what "nonstandard" is supposed to mean; I know what "informal" and "slang" is supposed to mean. As for avoidance of something in formal situations, that's what informal is for, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster does not label "snuck" nonstandard, while they label irregardless nonstandard. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in the absence of any suggestion of what it should be replaced with or how nonstandard spellings should be indicated. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My request would be that you clarify what "nonstandard spelling" means in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since our definition of "standard" isn't adequate, I'll adapt Merriam-Webster's and say it is spelling that is not "well established by usage in the [...] writing of the educated and widely recognized as acceptable". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Now, is ain't widely recognized as acceptable? One American-German lady reprimanded me for saying "ain't". And is zumindestens widely recognized as acceptable? Duden does not have it and my German teacher told me that it is bad German, while I heard my German colleagues use the word. The teacher also told me that "der Daniel" is bad German because of the definite article, but the real speakers obviously did not heed that prescription, and said "der Daniel" without restraint. Finally, what sort of objective evidence could we use to find out whether a spelling is "widely recognized as acceptable"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Occurs in certain fixed phrases and quotations ("it ain't over till..."); may be used humorously; not even remotely acceptable in a school essay; (at least in the UK) bears a strong stigma of lower "class" or lesser education, in general use. Equinox ◑ 09:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * isn't really relevant to this discussion since it isn't just a nonstandard spelling; it's nonstandard in spoken English as well. If you want to delete nonstandard form of and remove "nonstandard" from Module:labels/data and from Appendix:Glossary, those are different discussions. As for evidence to find out whether a spelling is widely recognized as acceptable, I'd say we should see whether it gets significant use in professionally edited and proofread materials. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there's no 'discussion that clarifies what "nonstandard" is supposed to mean' then let's have such a discussion! That's not a reason to delete the template. If we deleted every template where a word is open to interpretation, we'd have to delete every single template. You think 'rare' and 'idiomatic' aren't open to interpretation? For what it's worth, looks to me, Dan, like you're not even sure if you want to delete this template, more like you're putting it out there to see what other people think. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that proscribed means that some authoritative source says it's wrong and/or it's recognized as not "proper", while nonstandard means that any fluent speaker would recognize it as not just against the rules, but wrong. In languages with strong prescriptive traditions the overlap is pretty large, but the distinction is still useful as a whole. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not my understanding of "nonstandard" at all. For me, a nonstandard form is one that is fully correct in some variety (dialect, register, etc.) of a language but which is not used in the prestige variety (the only typically used for education, mass media, etc.). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's fully correct in a variety then we only need to gloss appropriately (e.g. Indian English). Equinox ◑ 17:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if we don't know the variety, or if it's in so many varieties it would be absurd to list them all. For example, there's probably no variety of English in which a form like isn't encountered, but it's nonstandard in all of them. And even within Indian English there is a prestige variety and non-prestige varieties, so there are Indian English terms that are standard and terms that are not, so "Indian English" would have to be used in addition to "nonstandard", not instead of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been my understanding that proscribed terms were those that were very widespread, but not considered "proper English," while nonstandard terms were more localized or less common, and likely to be thought of as incorrect by the vast majority of English speakers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience (not necessarily of Wiktionary), "nonstandard" is typically used as a euphemism for "incorrect". Mihia (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Proscribed makes no sense unless you say who proscribes it. Nonstandard does not mean 'regional' per Angr because some nonstandard things aren't regional and aren't standard in any region. "Incorrect", well I can't even attempt to define that because who would decide what's correct and what's isn't? That's essentially the same as proscribed because unless you say who calls it incorrect it's meaningless. Nonstandard things can be 'correct' depending on what you mean by correct. Goin' seems to tick all the boxes here as it's not regional, not standard in any dialect and not actually proscribed by any source I can think of. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Who would decide" is a consensus of educated and knowledgable native or native-level speakers of the relevant language. One would hope that the editors or compilers of a dictionary would be such people. Mihia (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But what if they don't want to be, do you have a plan to force them? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if it doesn't make sense in languages that don't have clear standards, in some languages there are clear standards for the language and "non-standard" would refer to something outside those standards. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By a standard, do you mean an authoritative word list by a regulatory body unelected by the people? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, something is nonstandard if speakers think it's nonstandard. Nothing to do with quangos. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No speaker of any dialect would think that goin' is standard, and we can document that. Not only that, if we don't document it somehow the entry goin' becomes misleading. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Renard. As noted above, there is a difference between "proscribed" and "nonstandard". "Proscribed" is for when an authority (on good days, we specify which authority in the usage notes) says not to use the term, form, or spelling. As Jack Lynch said, "a good descriptivist should tell you [...] not only how many people use [a word], but in what circumstances and to what effect", including if the word is proscribed. There has been discussion in the past of changing "proscribed" to "sometimes proscribed" (or "often proscribed" in cases of widespread proscription; etc), or finding a clearer label; I disagree with the person who in a prior discussion claimed that e.g. "condemned" would express that we weren't the ones condemning it more clearly than "proscribed" expresses that we aren't the ones proscribing it, but still I am not necessarily opposed to such a change. "Nonstandard" is unsurprisingly for when the term is not standard, i.e. (per [[nonstandard]]) "not conforming to the language as used by the majority of its speakers" or perhaps (in e.g. French) not conforming to the standard. For the distinction between that and "rare", see also Information_desk/2014/July. Sometimes, but not always, other labels may be more informative than "nonstandard", like "eye dialect of" in "goin'", "internet [slang]" in "u", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)