Wiktionary:Votes/2016-10/Removing label proscribed from entries

Voting on: Giving a go ahead to all automatic and semi-automatic edits that remove label "proscribed" from Wiktionary entries.

• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-10/Removing label proscribed from entries#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Template talk:proscribed
• Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/October#Vote: Removing label proscribed from entries
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-10/Removing label proscribed from entries

1. Support. I agree with Dan Polansky in that the label "proscribed" is imperative in disguise, and it implies that we, the English Wiktionary, are proscribing a word or a sense. We can use the "Usage notes" section to mention if there are any authoritative sources that consider a certain term or spelling incorrect. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. My rationale is on the talk page but let me try a different wording and one analogy. The idea that reported proscriptions are no longer proscriptions is an ingenuous one, but not to be accepted in a descriptivist dictionary. It comes without saying that a sourced wiki cannot contain original proscriptions ("You should not use word X") but rather reported proscriptions ("Alleggedly, you should not use word X"). A reported proscription still has the nature of proscription. And now the analogy. It does not make much of a difference whether you make an illegal drug or you just peddle it: even peddlers are criminally liable. A descriptivist dictionary does not deal in proscriptions: it does not make them, and it does not peddle them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. Every description can be taken as a proscription; "do not take Apfel to mean orange, do not use Apfel to mean orange." "Proscribed" is exactly parallel to "offensive"; some people will respond poorly to this use of the word, the main distinction is how.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

      Re: "Every description can be taken as a proscription": Not really. The above two imperatives do not necessarily follow from our definitions in Apfel. Someone who reports actual usage in a dictionary can be oblivious about other people's behaviors, merely trying to provide best accurate information to anyone who happens to care about accuracy. By contrast, whenever person X commands Y, "person X commands Y" is a description of fact, as well as "at least one person commands Y".

      But even if you were right, it would not really diminish my argument, which is of the following general form: look at the essence of what is being done, not at its surface syntactic form. And my imperative or exhortation is this: in a descriptivist dictionary, don't peddle prescriptions and proscriptions that contradict statistics of actual usage. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

      1. And my exhortation is that we produce a dictionary worthy of standing alongside Wikipedia, one that manages to serve all groups, including people who need to produce works for picky bosses or misguided teachers. We should be looking for reasons and ways to support them, not reasons and ways not to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

         That's circular: the same bosses and teachers are going to use reference works such as Wiktionary to show that the term in question is objectionable. When a disagreement arises, they're going to say: look, even Wiktionary indicates the term or use is proscribed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

         I doubt they're going to use Wiktionary for that; they're working on their own biases. And if they are, they're going to use Wiktionary to establish that Apfel does not mean orange. We can't compel people to treat a descriptive dictionary as descriptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

   Support I would rather see it dealt with in a Usage note, I think. Ƿidsiþ 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   @Widsith You realize that this vote doesn't allow for that, right? It would permit bots to simply remove the labels without replacing them with anything. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

   In which case, switching to oppose. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

   The vote does not forbid use of usage notes to convey similar information in a more descriptivist tone. In the rationale, I argued that we should use usage notes, and gave an example: 'Pravidla českého pravopisu, a handbook considered by many Czechs to decide what is correct spelling, does not contain "tchýně" and only contain "tchyně".' However, it is to be admitted that the proposal as formulated gives a go ahead to remove the label without at the same time expanding the usage notes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   An alternative proposal: Give a go head to remove proscribed label as long as similar information is provided in the usage note of the entry, the intent being that the label is eventually replaced with usage notes in all entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

   I think such a proposal would pass, but you'd have to create a new vote. Most people's objection to this vote, including my own, seems to be due to the fact that it offers no replacement. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

   The only place I'm really uncomfortable with the replacement of a proscribed label with a usage note is in long entries where it would mean you'd have to read the whole page to realize the connection between one usage out of a dozen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

3. Support. Better labels might include "dialectical," "colloquial," "informal," or even "non-standard." There is no reason to even mention that it has been proscribed. And who proscribed it? If the answer isn't in the usage notes already, it might as well just be eliminated without replacement. Jan sewi (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

   The use of proscribed can usually be taken to mean none of those labels are appropriate. And the reason to mention it is to warn users that someone might give them crap for using it, even if there's no good reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Can you give an example of where none of those labels apply? I just looked up, for example, "irregardless," and it has "nonstandard" along with "proscribed." It then goes on to say that it is discouraged in the usage notes. The word "proscribed" is redundant and, as has been pointed out already, seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to save prescriptivism. Jan sewi (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Singular they is perfectly standard, used across dialects, and can be found in formal writing, but it is still sometimes proscribed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you. In that case I would just put it in the usage notes and link the Wikipedia article, which is probably already done. Throwing the word "proscribed" in there makes it seem far less acceptable than it actually is, imo. Jan sewi (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Most of these could be labelled better (and it should be made explicit what authorities are doing the proscribing), but this is still valuable information that shouldn't be merged. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose. If native speakers perceive certain words as proscribed, we need to know that. If the usage of a term, e.g. Russian ложи́ть (ložítʹ) is considered proscribed in Russia, foreigners need to know about this and avoid using these terms, even if they are used and attested.

   My opposing to removing the labels doesn't mean I'm opposing to having such entries in Wiktionary. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   @Anatoli T.: ложи́ть (ložítʹ) contains non-standard and low colloquial. Given that, what is the additional value of "proscribed"? I mean, low colloquial alone suggests it usually not used in formal communication, isn't it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   There are many overlaps and it's not always easy to explain the exact difference or choose the right category. E.g. брю́лик (brjúlik) is a "low colloquial" or slang word for "diamond". "Low colloquial" means here "uneducated", "low class" word, these category will also include words, which are stylistically or ethically unacceptable. This is an attempt to render the Russian term просторе́чие (prostoréčije). Non-standard is admittedly closer to proscribed but IMO proscribed better describes how language authorities (if they exist) treat a term. Since disputed categories are subcategories of non-standard categories, the "non-standard" label can be potentially removed. In general, I support language specific labels/categories, if they are commonly used and better understood by native speakers or if they add a feature specific to those languages, e.g. humble or honorific in reference to Japanese, Korean, etc. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose --WikiTiki89 01:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose Having honest, truthful labels that are useful to users and will prevent them from looking like fools for using a proscribed term is much more important than trying to promote a sociolinguist’s utopia. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   If a person uses a "proscribed" term that is widely used by the native spekars, that person cannot possibly look like a fool. One measure of competence in a language is to be undistinguishable from native speakers based on language production alone; and since the term is widely used by natives, it will not serve to mark off the non-natives from the natives. What foreigners probably should not do if they want to sound native is use rare terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   Yeah, that’s one measure of competence. Another measure of competence is being able to use standard language and avoid proscribed terms and constructs. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   You mean like google:"proscribed terms" (1,760 hits) or google:"proscribed constructs" (45 hits)? Or google:"proscribed words" (6,430 hits)? By the standard of rarity, I submit to the reader that these putative terms are not really in widespread use. The sad circumstance is that it is this alleggedly descriptivist dictionary that introduces a new terminology to sneak in prescriptivism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   That's an entirely different argument. If you wanted to make the point that we should use another word rather than "proscribed" because no one uses "proscribed" that way, that would be a different story. But this vote does not provide any replacement, because your real goal is not to label these words with anything. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   I concede your point to an extent, but let me point out the implied, unspoken argument, which was presented by showing rather than stating: frequency is the indicator sought, not proscription. I do not need a source "proscribing" the term "proscribed construction"; frequency alone tells me hardly anyone uses the term. For instance, have a look at regardless,(irregardless*500) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.: whatever proscription was made, it was successful in driving the frequency down to yield a frequency ratio characteristic of misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   The idea that something is inappropriate if it is uncommon and appropriate if it's common is absurd. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   I did not say "appropriate" or "inappropriate". Since, "appropriate" for what purpose? The idea that, if you want to sound like a native and want to avoid what many natives will consider to be error, you should avoid vanishingly rare forms, is just common sense rather than being absurd. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

   So, rare like your google books:"characteristic of misspellings" shouldn’t be used, Polansky? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

   The rarity of the above does give me a pause. However, single words in a dictionary are not combinations of words, and their rarity or commonness is a fairly good guide to their being accepted. When the commonness of a putative word drops to zero, we exclude it from the dictionary no matter how "logical" or well formed the putative word may be. A zero-attested word may even be in a dictionary and we still exclude it.

   By contrast, the pronouncement of an unelected authority does not alone serve as a good guide to acceptance since they do not purport to empirically enquire into acceptance in the population of speakers by polling and similar means of empirical science, but rather try to tell the population what they ought to do. Relying on authoritative sources for acceptance is no better than relying on authoritative sources for existence, and the latter is what we do not do for well documented languages per WT:ATTEST. We figure that authoritative sources all too often include too little and sometimes include too much, and that we can do better by looking at evidence ourselves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose Crom daba (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose Wyang (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose Since we are voting on "the proposed action, not on the rationale", I have to go with the gut feeling. I think I'd prefer more prescriptivism, and learners who have to pass exams like IELTS would benefit. Equinox ◑ 11:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

   If a rationale in support of an action is good and sound, so must be the action, right? It does not hold the other way around: if a rationale is bad and unsound, the action can still be good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

9. Oppose. The fact that a word is proscribed by mainstream sources is important sociolinguistic information, and it would be a shame for that information to be removed. I might be able to tolerate removing all of the "proscribed" labels if they are replaced with usage notes conveying the same information, but the wording of this vote seems to allow users to remove the "proscribed" label from lots of entries without replacing it with anything. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose per my comments in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:nonstandard_spelling_of. As Jack Lynch said, "a good descriptivist should tell you not only how many people use , but in what circumstances and to what effect." - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

    Now is Jack Lynch a descriptivist? And if he is a prescriptivist, should I take what he says about "good descriptivist" seriously? He is not an editor of a descriptivist dictionary, is he? And why should I take his statement seriously when no argument supporting his statement is made available at the same time to me? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

    Anyway, that Jack Lynch does not appear to have a Wikipedia page, but the above quote can currently be found in https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/writing/p.html. Per http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/, Jack Lynch is "Professor in the English department, of the Newark campus of Rutgers University, specializing in the English literature of the eighteenth century and the history of the English language."

    The linked web pages seems to have been published as The English Language: A User's Guide, Jack Lynch, 2015. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

11. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Per -sche. Tharthan (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Mr. Granger. Proscription is valuable information, and must be included. I would prefer a more in-depth usage note, however, rather than a vague label. I'm not opposing the removal of the "proscribed" label per se, but I strongly oppose the removal of that information. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose, even descriptivism should note the existence of proscription. Anti-Gamz Dust (Here's Hillcrest!) 03:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Even though I hate the word "proscribed" because the average reader is unlikely to be familiar with it, the value in noting that terms are proscribed is very high. This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose all automatic removal of potentially useful information. That said, I think this label should always be specified, as eg at specially, however#Conjunction or even biological; simply labelling a sense "proscribed" as at eg alternately tells me nothing, not even whether it really is proscribed. (Not to mention obscurities like "somewhat proscribed".) --Droigheann (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose — Saltmarsh^{συζήτηση-talk} 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Oppose per WikiTiki89 (18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)).​—msh210℠ (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Oppose I think the feature the label is fulfilling is very useful. Labelling something as "proscribed" does not imply that we are an authoritative source on the matter (on that note, I do think in these cases Wiktionary should have referencing proving that a term's definition is seen as incorrect). I may be tempted to agree with something that provides a formal replacement (which may, instead of requiring automated edits to remove this information, require a simpler change to the {{lb}} template to deprecate the current label and display the new one instead (dunno if that's standard practice here)). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

    Ineligible to vote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

19. Oppose in current form. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose It is a descriptive fact that some forms are proscribed in the standard written form of some language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose bulk removal of useful information, though I would possibly support an alternative. Dbfirs 09:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Abstain. I find the label 'proscribed' pretty absurd; 'proscribed' means 'forbidden', so the label seems to mean, if not "We forbid this usage", then at least "We believe that some magical authority has the power to forbid this usage, and that (s)he's done so". That is pretty obviously a nonsensical and prescriptivist view with no place here. The only reason the label has survived so long as it has is that we've managed to convince ourselves that it means only "some authority has condemned, or would condemn, this usage".
   But for most usages with this label, I do think we want some label. So voting to let a bot remove this label from all entries, with no guidance at all on what else the bot should be doing at the same time, seems like a bad idea.
   —Ruakh_TALK 00:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

   @Ruakh: Thank you. An alternative to the proposal of this vote would be to make an addition freeze on proscribed. I would list all current uses of the label on the vote talk page, and any new uses would be removed; someone might modify the modules to show a deprecation warning in the entries that use the label. One alternative label is nonstandard, which dictionaries actually use, with I am told has a slightly different meaning. Then we would manually process the entries marked as proscribed, with no time pressure. We could be manually replacing the label with usage notes, where the usage note would indicate who proscribes, and possibly be inline-referenced to the proscription.

   The problem with that is that most people do not seem to have a problem with the label and its meaning at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Abstain We define the label proscribed as Some educators or other authorities recommend against the listed usage. This information is retrievable by clicking the label. Any phantasmagorias about the label having another meaning or implication I cannot share. Keeping the info in usage notes might be more precise, but I don't really care in which of these two options we present it. We must present it, of course. Korn (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Abstain: I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, the information that someone somewhere forbids or discourages the use of a term is useful, on the other, Wiktionary's use of the label could mislead people into believing that Wiktionary is the one forbidding or discouraging. It might be better to move it to a usage note and tell who is the proscriber, and, if applicable, why. But I don't feel very strongly about it right now. — Eru·tuon 17:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
4. abstain Late abstention: terms cannot be proscribed. Use can be. Automated removal of the label should probably occur, but only in a contextually-sensitive manner: if a term is proscribed by an authority in a durably archived manner, it should likely be mentioned in usage. OTOH, giving someone (say, Chicago Manual of Style) undue weight as an arbiter of English usage is just as great an error as airily allowing drive-by labeling as proscribed. Strunk opposed the use of contractions, all contractions, in written text except as eye-dialect. Maybe he is correct, but we should not mark them all as proscribed. - Amgine/ ^t·e 00:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Failed: 3-22-3 (12%-88%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)