Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Renaming CFI section for spellings
- Voting on: Renaming a section of CFI from "Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings" to "Spellings". The proposed edit to CFI is the following:
===SpellingsMisspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings===
Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings: There is no simple hard and fast rule, particularly in English, for determining whether a particular spelling is “correct”. A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to support his view with references. Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard, as can statistics concerning the prevalence of various forms.
- Rationale: The section heading "Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings" is rather conspicuous in the table of contents of CFI because of its length. The proposed edit makes the heading short while keeping the scoping information available as the first item below the section heading.
- Vote starts: 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23.59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) -- 14 days later
- Vote created: Dan Polansky 15:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion:
Support
Support Dan Polansky 08:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)- Support DAVilla 07:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Yair rand (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Equinox ◑ 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC) though mainly indifferent. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Daniel. 20:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support I don't see why not. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support —Stephen (Talk) 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose why is this a problem? -- Prince Kassad 18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shorter headings make it easier to overview the table of contents in WT:CFI, IMHO. They also make it easier to refer to sections, in this case using WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The change is misleading. The page is about what to include. Thus, this section is about including misspellings not spellings. Eclecticology 20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The section discusses the inclusion of various spellings. Unless you say that a misspelling is not a spelling, all things discussed in the section are spellings, whether considered correct or incorrect. I do not see anything misleading. The section could be called "misspellings" if it only discussed misspellings, but as it also discusses variant spellings, the narrowest term that covers all things discussed seems to be "spellings". --Dan Polansky 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- All words have spellings whether correct or not. This section is about including spellings that differ from what is commonly accepted as correct. Saying so in the heading would be more to the point. I would propose simply removing "common misspellings" from the heading. Eclecticology 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The section discusses the inclusion of various spellings. Unless you say that a misspelling is not a spelling, all things discussed in the section are spellings, whether considered correct or incorrect. I do not see anything misleading. The section could be called "misspellings" if it only discussed misspellings, but as it also discusses variant spellings, the narrowest term that covers all things discussed seems to be "spellings". --Dan Polansky 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Abstain
Abstain Ƿidsiþ 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Seems trivial.- Abstain —RuakhTALK 13:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I would support changing the section to be more specifically about misspellings — I think that would be more coherent — and of course Eclecticology's ===Misspellings=== suggestion would then be the way to go. As it is, that section is just a rambling sub-essay that talks about spellings in a few different ways, so ===Misspellings=== seems inappropriate. —RuakhTALK 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself to death (a risk I'm willing to take) a lot of CFI is discussion rather than actual criteria. Discussion should be on the talk pages or on subpages which aren't officially policy like WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- A rewrite of the section would be in order, IMHO. Nonetheless, having a broader section called "Spellings" makes it possible to discuss all things related to spellings under one head, including leet spellings. --Dan Polansky 08:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself to death (a risk I'm willing to take) a lot of CFI is discussion rather than actual criteria. Discussion should be on the talk pages or on subpages which aren't officially policy like WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I would support changing the section to be more specifically about misspellings — I think that would be more coherent — and of course Eclecticology's ===Misspellings=== suggestion would then be the way to go. As it is, that section is just a rambling sub-essay that talks about spellings in a few different ways, so ===Misspellings=== seems inappropriate. —RuakhTALK 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Decision
- Passes 8–2–2, and implemented. —RuakhTALK 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)