Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings

Keeping common misspellings

 * Voting on: Keeping common misspellings in the main namespace; modifying WT:CFI policy page to be explicit about it by inserting "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included." after "Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings:" in WT:CFI.
 * Rationale: For the vote creator's rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
 * Vote starts: 00:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC), since the 4:2 result is on the boundary between pass and fail (or no consensus) and since getting more votes--even abstaining--would be worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC); a conditional support changed to unconditional support today in .--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2014/April
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings

Support

 * 1)  Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)'
 * 2)  Equinox ◑ 08:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  Pengo (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) . — Ungoliant (falai) 13:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) I  this addition, BUT the text should be added in the place suggested by msh210 below (after, or as part of, the sentence " The misspellings may well merit entries.") . I can't help but wonder whether the other supporters realise that the location suggested in the vote (directly after the heading) would render that part of CFI a bit incoherent. This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose that you change your support to support the vote as is, and we can remove the sentence "The misspellings may well merit entries" via other vote. If you do not support the vote as is, you should better oppose, so we can actually close this vote in a meaningful manner. I find it worthwhile to actually support so we have something voted-on in the CFI that does the job of demonstrating consensus for those reading CFI so they do not need to search discussions and votes, but opposing is naturally your right and makes it easier to close this vote in one or another direction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've struck that portion of my text, as I support the text being added, even though I still believe it is being inserted in the wrong place. I would definitely welcome a follow-up vote. This, that and the other (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made Votes/pl-2014-08/CFI Misspelling Cleanup. Please provide feedback there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  (weak). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Status quo is that we do as proposed here: keep common misspellings and not rare ones, with the degree of commonness unspecified. Thus, whether this vote passes or fails will change nothing practically. I oppose it because I don't like the wording. Specifically, the clarification "Rare misspelling should", etc., as above, should come at a place in the CFI where it fits in context, viz in lieu of, and clarifying, the current sentence "The misspellings may well merit entries". Putting it immediately after "Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings:" and well before the existing CFI discussion of commonness of spelling (in the following paragraph), as here proposed, is better avoided in my opinion. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit that the section WT:CFI needs editing and pruning, including removing things that are IMHO wrong or irrelevant ("A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to provide references for support.", "Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard [...]"), and removing things that become less relevant or irrelevant if this vote passes. However, starting the section with one clear sentence that captures the existing practice is a good start, IMHO. I don't even know how many people want to keep common misspellings, and after this vote, we should know. Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing your specific proposals on how to modify the wording of the section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "Anyway…", please see above: "Specifically, the clarification 'Rare misspelling should', etc., as above, should come at a place in the CFI where it fits in context, viz in lieu of, and clarifying, the current sentence 'The misspellings may well merit entries'." &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  I don't see any discussion on this at all. What does this change? Any examples? -- Liliana • 12:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal aligns CFI with the actual common practice. Do you oppose inclusion of common misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The concept of "misspelling" is already quite dubious in a dictionary that tries to be descriptive and not proscriptive. How are we deciding when a misspelling is a misspelling and not an alternative form, especially in the light of cases like haĉek? Of course, I can understand the fact that people don't want one-off typos to be included (especially since we still accept Usenet for citations and they're very, very common there since it's so easy to typo thanks to the awkward layout of contemporary American keyboards), but if a word manages to appear three times in independent publications spanning at least a year (and thus passed proofreaders and the like) why are we excluding them? It's not like we're gonna run out of space anytime soon. -- Liliana • 16:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the concept of misspelling can be worked out in a useful manner that is neither prescriptivistic nor authoritarian; I did so to my satisfaction at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013. If a spelling is very close to another spelling but is 1000-times less common, it is very likely a misspelling. By marking it as a misspelling, we do not tell people what they ought to do; we merely tell them that the spelling was very likely not intended, and that the spelling is very likely to be replaced with another one when present is a text submitted to a copyeditor. I do not oppose including attested vanishingly rare misspellings as long as they are marked as misspellings, but I suspect other editors do oppose it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  This is status quo, and I applaud trying to codify it. However, I'd prefer if the wording were found in place of or closer to "misspellings may well merit entries". Saying it earlier supplants the explanation that your correct spelling may look incorrect to me, and that's a more important point. Certain spellings, although they are rare, are still considered correct in some circles, and should neither be removed nor labeled as misspelling. DAVilla 03:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The added wording says nothing about what is and what is not a misspelling. Thus, the added wording does not supplant (replace, supersede, render ineffective) an explanation that "your correct spelling may look incorrect to me". I admit that the proposed change leaves "misspellings may well merit entries" in place, while this should be removed. It can get removed in a subsequent vote, together with "A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to provide references for support.", and "Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard [...]"). The order of sentences seems okay to me: we first say that rare misspellings are excluded and only then discuss what a "misspelling" is; likewise, we first say that we include things that are attested and idiomatic, and only then discuss what "attested" and "idiomatic" means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  I am in two minds on this subject. My gut feeling is to scrap all misspellings on the grounds that it is difficult to determine between common misspellings, those that are not so common, and those that are downright rare. Then there's typos... I can see the merit in retaining the most common misspellings, but the big problem is where to draw the line.
 * Slightly off-topic, the Wiktionary spellcheck is capable of creating what I consider to be misspellings, by converting British English spellings to American English. I find this highly annoying. It also changes foreign words (with similar spellings) to English ones, so one has to be on their guard all the time. Donnanz (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary spellcheck? What are you talking about? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't use British English, you won't know what I'm talking about. Donnanz (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do. I want to know what is this Wiktionary spellcheck you mentioned. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I assume it's a Wiktionary spellcheck, I have only come across its characteristics on Wiktionary. If I type in a word like "realise" it is automatically changed to "realize". The "correction" has to be manually overridden. Donnanz (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd. It might be something your browser is doing... or I suppose it is always possible that someone wrote a spell-check gadget and your account has somehow come to have it turned on. If you're still having this issue, please bring it up in the GP. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  per DAVilla, msh210 and proposer. -- Gauss (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Decision

 * Can someone please close this? I cannot edit WT:CFI and I am the creator of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote passes 6-2 (75%) (CFI diff). --WikiTiki89 18:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)