Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Changing the wording of the "proscribed" label

Voting on: Changing the display of {{label|...|proscribed}} to (considered incorrect) for English only, and/or for all other languages.

For a discussion on why there are English and non-English sections to this vote, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-07/Changing the wording of the "proscribed" label.

For a more extensive rationale for this vote, see this Beer Parlour discussion.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: This, that and the other (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/July#Change_.22proscribed.22_to_.22considered_incorrect.22
• Wiktionary:Tea room#.22alot.22_is_NOT_correct_English.
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-07/Changing the wording of the "proscribed" label

1. Conditional support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

   I only support both proposals if this helps both to pass. If my support votes would cause only one to pass and the other to fail, then my vote is: oppose both proposals. Reason: I prefer "considered incorrect" rather than "proscribed" for all languages, but I prefer having just "proscribed" in all languages than having different labels for the same thing in different languages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Support (normal, not conditional) This, that and the other (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Vahag (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Support — SGconlaw (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Support — Mihia (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Conditional support on the same conditions that Daniel Carrero laid out. Have fun trying to figure out how to count all these votes. Despite being a native English speaker, as a non-linguist I did not understand what proscribed meant when I first saw it; "considered incorrect" makes more sense to me. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

   Isn't that what the glossary is for? --WikiTiki89 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

   Hi! I'm an average user, and as I live a very fleeting life, I'm too lazy to read that. Thanks though. Seriously though, users should have to bounce around the wiki as few times as they really need to. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   If you know that you don't know what a word means, then it can't possibly mislead you. People are more likely to not understand "proscribed" than to misunderstand it. But in the case of "considered incorrect", people are more likely to misunderstand it than to not understand it. --WikiTiki89 00:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Strongly disagree. The average dictionary user, especially the user who does not already know that his word is "proscribed", will probably have no idea what "proscribed" means, and probably won't bother to find out, and therefore will never know that using that word is a mistake. "considered incorrect", however, can hardly be misunderstood by anyone with enough English knowledge to meaningfully use the English dictionary. I would go further and support plain "incorrect", e.g. for words like "alot". Mihia (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   damn edit conflicts What is there to misunderstand about it? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   You might think it means that we consider it incorrect. Isn't that the whole problem with "proscribed"? Our glossary explains it really well as "Some educators or other authorities recommend against the listed usage." If we want a clear and non-misleading label, it would have to be "considered incorrect by some". But if that's too long, I think we're better off with someone most people wouldn't understand, which hopefully they might get the urge to click on and see our nice definition in the glossary. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

   Eh I see your point but it seems like a stretch. I don't think we're better of with something most people wouldn't understand if we can help it. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not so much saying that we're better off with "proscribed", but that we're worse off with "considered incorrect", because the latter is very easily misleading. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

   Too much of a stretch for me, for sure. I think it is obvious that "considered incorrect" means "considered incorrect by educators/authorities/whatever". Mihia (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

7. Support, since many will not know what "proscribed" means upon sight and I don't think "proscribed" necessarily applies in all cases where it's shown. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Support "forbid", "prohibit", "denounce" have no place in a dictionary (except as definitions) — Saltmarsh. 04:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Conditional oppose. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

   See my conditional support vote in the "for English" above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose I prefer the formal "proscribed" because we are talking about something that certain authorities (e.g. dictionaries, style guides) treat as wrong. "Proscription" conveys that sense to me in a way that the vague "considered incorrect" does not. (Cf. comment on talk page about what "deemed" sounds like.) Equinox ◑ 18:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   @Equinox: And you're not swayed by my arguments at the BP discussion linked above? This, that and the other (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Equinox. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose I don't think "considered incorrect" is any better than "proscribed". --WikiTiki89 18:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Conditional oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose: too wordy, overly cautious. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose: if someone doesn't know what "proscribed" means, then they should look it up. Consider it a daily vocab boost. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Conditional support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

   See my conditional support vote in the "for English" above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Support This, that and the other (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Vahag (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Support — SGconlaw (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Conditional support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Support — Saltmarsh. 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Conditional oppose. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

   See my conditional support vote in the "for English" above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Equinox above. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't think "considered incorrect" is any better than "proscribed". --WikiTiki89 18:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Conditional oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Barytonesis (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No consensus.

• for English:

  2 conditional votes

  6 normal support votes

  5 normal oppose votes

  0 abstain votes

  counting the conditional votes as support votes: 8-5-0 (61.53%)

• for other languages:

  2 conditional votes

  4 normal support votes

  4 normal oppose votes

  0 abstain votes

  counting the conditional votes as support votes: 6-4-0 (60.00%)

Comment: After the fact, I suggest always having a separate "Abstain" section for every available branch of "Support"/"Oppose" sections in future votes. Someone might want to abstain on a specific proposal and not abstain on the other. Example: for this vote, an editor who only edits English terms might support or oppose for English, but abstain for other languages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)