Wiktionary talk:Votes/2020-09/Removing Old English entries with wynns

Other exceptions
Are there any other cases (besides the entry on wynn itself) where 1) it's significant that something is a wynn and not a w (e.g., a scribal abbreviation via a stroke through the wynn where the stroke would be in a different place on a w, or an abbreviation wynn-r-rotunda where w would not be followd by r-rotunda), and 2) we want an entry on that kind of abbreviation? I seem to recall ISMETA adding some scribal abbreviations before (and I think some may have been deleted?). - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Overcomplicated
, I kinda find the vote overly complicated. Like, I don't even follow it. I think it should just be very clear, you support deleting all wynn entries, having them hard-redirect to, as they already currently do, or you don't. -- 19:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is very clear, much unlike the ungrammatical third sentence of your comment above. There are three options: wynn hard redirects, no wynn entries of any kind, or the status quo. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "having them hard-redirect to, as they already currently do": hard redirects do not seem to be the current situation / status quo, at least not uniformly; acƿician, for example, is a "soft redirect" i.e. "alternative form of" acwician, and likewise with ƿudulæs and ƿesan, the first entries that come up when I type wynn into the search bar. I presumed that such soft redirects were the status quo, hence this vote allows people to support or oppose either of the other possible options that I've seen much support for, namely either deleting the entries or hard-redirecting them. (The fourth option, of making the wynn spellings the lemmas, is not represented.) - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry if my comment came off as rude. That wasn't my intent, but apparently it was loud enough for Meta to feel the need to insult me. My apologies.
 * It seems I may be confusing terminology. I thought ƿorld was "hard-redirecting", whilst clicking ƿorld to bring you to world was simplify "character filtering", much like removing diacritics. -- 19:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hard-redirecting" is actually having  as the entry for ƿorld. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but I guess what I mean is, I thought of what set-up as auto-hard-redirecting. Obviously not as fast, but still does the same thing. --  15:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess what Erutuon set up is like... harder redirecting, or something, haha. (FWIW, btw, I didn't take your comment as rude, so don't worry about that. :) ) - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, are we all clear on what's going on? Does anyone want any changes made to the vote? (I pushed it back two days just in case...) - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Rationale
The rationale, as I understand it, is that (like long s) wynn is found in historical orthography (/"typography") but modern editions almost(?) always use w, and wynn can always be replaced by w, because there are no* (*see top section of this page) entries where wynn vs w is contrastive (unlike with v vs u, where both are still used and are contrastive). Hence, there is no detriment to making the pages redirects (and indeed, they are currently "soft redirects"). And there are benefits to making them either "hard redirects" (with #REDIRECT Target page name ) or what I'll call "software redirects" (where the software automatically redirects users, like it currently does for long s), in reducing duplication of content (e.g. even with soft redirects, there's potential for the headword line to note vowel length and this to get changed on one entry, e.g. ƿesan, and not its paired entry, wesan). Either form of redirects allows users who search for wynn spellings to still find the relevant content, but avoids editor effort to maintain two entries for every word spelled with wynn/w. Please correct me if I am mistaken or if there are other rationales. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Similarities to Gothic Romanizations e.g. 𐌱𐌰𐍂𐌹𐌶𐌴𐌹𐌽𐍃 vs barizeins
I can't help but notice the parallel here with the Gothic-script entries and their Romanization counterpart entries: e.g. 𐌱𐌰𐍂𐌹𐌶𐌴𐌹𐌽𐍃 vs barizeins. Does anybody know if other situations like this have been discussed before with other languages? This vote could could hold important implications on many other transliterated script entries site-wide... Guitarmankev1 (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This vote has no implications on Gothic. There was a vote that supported having romanisation soft redirects for ancient languages, which is not very similar to this case. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)