Wiktionary talk:Spelling variants in entry names

Introduction

--Richardb 07:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This draft policy is put up as guidance for newcomers to Wiktionary, and as a basis for further discussion.

But please, let all further discussion be aimed at REACHING AN ACCEPTABLE CONSENSUS, not at

• inflaming or highlighting differences,
• going over old arguments,
• pointing out perceived advantages, disadvantages,
• trying to prove one spelling variant new or right, the other old or wrong etc.

Bear with me as I pull the old discussions into this spot (well, subpages of)
see

• Wiktionary:Using UK/US spellings and vocabulary Feb 2004 - Feb 2005
• Wiktionary:Policy Think Tank on American or British Spelling/discussion archive Apr 2005 - Dec 2005
• Wiktionary talk:Spelling Variants in Entry Names - Draft Policy/BP April 2006

Some stuff moved instead to Wiktionary:Project - Keeping Translations Common and Synchronised Across Different Spellings, under Wiktionary talk:Project - Keeping Translations Common and Synchronised Across Different Spellings/BP April2006

---

  Please continue discussion below this point, not in the archived pages 

To the section on 'if you don't believe it is a valid spelling' I would add...

• Find cites in reputable arbiters of the language claiming sunup is an error, a barbarism, or what have you, and put them in a =Usage note= so people may be educated to come around to your point of view (cf. alot.)

—Muke Tever 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing variations of CJKV characters

May we discuss this Draft Policy for writing variations of CJKV characters? This is especially a concern of traditional and simplified Chinese and Japanese shinjitai and kyujitai. Chinese Wiktionary is testing redirections to combine contents to avoid some duplicated info.--Jusjih 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree that there should be a policy. In addition to the above mentioned written forms, we should also include such things as Pinyin, POJ, Jyutping, hiragana, katakana and romaji etc.

Here is a table to illustrate the point:

English definition	to translate
Traditional Chinese, kyujitai	翻譯
Simplified Chinese	翻译
shinjitai	翻訳
Pinyin	fānyì
POJ	hoan-e̍k
Jyutping	faan1yik6
hiragana	ほんやく
katakana	ホンヤク
romaji	honyaku
Korean	번역
romanized Korean	beonyeok

All of the above should be included in a single entry if possible. This is easier said than done. A logical thing to do would be to use the Traditional Chinese as the key, and have everything point back to it. I made an initial attempt to do just that early on, but this was met with resistance from both the Japanese speakers and the PRC based Chinese speakers. Another issue that we face is how do we include all of the above information without sacrificing readability. Example sentences is another issue. If I create an example sentence for Mandarin, which character set do I use? If both, do I write the sentence twice (once in Simplified and once in Traditional)? Should the duplicate sentences be in the same entry, or should a new entry be created? The entry for 容易 demonstrates this problem. A-cai 13:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My preference is to go ahead with the creation of this policy without considering non-alphabetic "spelling". The policy will cover the current majority of users. There is nothing to stop you starting up another policy think tank page to cover "representation" variants, or whatever. I really have no knowledge in that area, and don't want this simple policy to be unnecessarily over complicated by something that seems to be quite seperate.--Richardb 07:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Types of Spelling Variants / Capitalisation

We should note that there is a class of words which can be spelled with various capitalisations: zeppelin, Zeppelin; pinyin, pinyin; BASIC, Basic. There are also some which may have subtle differences capitalized as compared to all lowercase: Earth, earth. — Hippietrail 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally, use a simple REDIRECT if there is no good reason to have multiple entries

We definitely need to say that if you choose to use a redirect that you must also edit the page you are redirecting to, to add your variant to either the "headword" section or the Alternative spellings section. In the latter case it probably shouldn't be wikified. — Hippietrail 02:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Think this is covered by List valid spelling variants in each and every real entry created under different spellings--Richardb 10:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it is existing practice that we do enter separate entries for each inflected form (e.g. think, thinks, thinking, thought) I think it is very misleading to tell newcomers to enter redirects. You must first explain that what they probably consier to be "no good reason" is not at all the same as what the Wiktionary community has chosen. Most newcomers consider inflections to be mere spelling varients (not knowing the difference) and reading this, first and foremost, they are very likely to misinterpret it.

Going one step further, there is no way for a newcomer to know about the dozens of heated NPOV battles we've had over US vs. UK spellings. (Once we have a policy, why on Earth do they need to know anything about the past vituperative debates!!!). Whichever spelling you prefer, the alternate would seem reasonable to redirect, right? Before telling newcomers "use redirects, if there is no good reason to have multiple entries," you must explain in painful detail exactly why US/UK spelling variations are considered a "good reason" to have separate entries. In fact, we don't consider it a good idea, but rather a requirement!

Far from it. There are many simple redirect entries. Take tea cup, tea-cup, teacup. No way do we have to have a full redirect for each. Same for naivety and it's several variants. So, if someone wants to originate a group of entries of that type, there is NO REQUIREMENT (how can there be anyway. Who is going to MAKE THEM DO IT!) for them to create full entries for all of them. Simple redirects will do, if that is their personal choice as the originator. However, if YOU feel each of these needs a full entry, then YOU can go and put those entries in, and the policy clearly states NO-ONE should then over-write your efforts with redirects. You keep missing the point that this part of the policy only applies if you are the originator of an entry.--Richardb 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The notion that entering a redirect is OK, is completely unacceptable!

1. Most new users do not understand how to get to the redirect, so that they can overwrite it.
2. Having a non-blank entry means the very-popular preload templates cannot be used. (As an old-time contributor, you may not use the preload templates, but the majority of new users DO.)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If we rearrange this section, we could come up with a checklist of things that are not acceptable as redirects. Once those things are all clear, then I think it would be safe to tell newcomers to enter redirects. (This is a policy about Spelling in entry names, not about REDIRECTS!). Richardb)

1. Not a region-specific spelling
2. Not a cultural-specific spelling
3. Not an inflected form (-s, -ing, -ed, -ly, -or, -er, -est, -tion)

   This policy has nothing to do with inflected forms! Richardb

   Except, perhaps, everything. It is recommending that people simply guess, when there in fact, exist strong reasons not to do so! --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Not a misspelling (common or otherwise)

Having made it past that check list, we can then remind them of what is OK to redirect:

1. Alternate forms of idioms
2. Diacritics
3. Pinyin

And finally, we could point out that as of June 2006, case-redirects are no longer needed (but for now still permissible.)

Are they not still needed for compatability with external references from Wikipedia etc ?Richardb

Correct - they are no longer needed. External links to the "wrong" case entry will automagically "find" the correct entry. The exception to this is "WikiSaurus" due to the capital "S" in the middle. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 04:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Not a region-specific spelling

My personal view is that insisting on separate entries for different regional usages in all cases is pedantic at best, and often destructive. Take vigor and vigour. There is apparently no difference of meaning intended. Yet the entries are not the same, with each having more value in one place, less in the other. But the policy would allow for the pedant to create the two entries, and just ask that they take some responsibility for keeping the different entries in line.--Richardb 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remain calm. The title of this section suggests that this policy is about REDIRECTS and nothing else. Why do you think I've been so bent out of shape about it, in the past?

The tea-cup/teacup/tea cup is indeed the exact cast where we want people to conclude that redirects are appropriate. But certainly not in the case of vigor/vigour as those must indicate what regions they are valid spellings in.

I am not missing the your point, that this policy section is about original entries. You are missing three points: 1) we don't want bad redirects entered, 2) this policy starts by suggesting they enter a redirect 3) it doesn't tell them not to enter redirects first, but rather as an afterthought (by when it is too late, usually.)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Types of Spelling Variants / Style Variance

We should note that certain categories apply only to spellings with diacritics or ligatures. There is one for English called Category:English words spelled with diacritics or ligatures. I don't think there are currently any others. Anyway this category should only ever be used on the page of the spelling with such characters, so in this case a redirect is not a good idea. — Hippietrail 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Variants - neutral wording

1. Firstly, it is Wiktionary style that all headings use sentence case, which means "Spelling variants".
2. Secondly, there have been many discussion over the years of Wiktionary to explain that the neutral wording "Alternative spellings" is better than any using the word variant since the latter word strongly implies that this page is the correct spelling and all others are inferior. This creates POV and also leads to fights over whether color is a variant of colour or whether colour is the variant of color. Using the former wording we imply that instead of that situation, each is a valid alternative for at least some people, place, time, and style-guide compliance, etc.

I just noticed that currently the article says exactly the opposite. I suggest looking up alternative and variant both here and in a paper dictionary. If both are found to have negative implications, another term should be sought. — Hippietrail 02:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My recollection of discussion is that the word "alternative" was abhorred as implying a lesser or aberant variant. Perhaps all those years of alternative lifestyle, alternative medicine etc. To me, variant is NPOV. But perhaps the best way is to list all the variants together, including the one for the page, thus implying all are equal variants.--Richardb 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, aren't the labels alternative lifestyle, alternative medicine, etc., chosen to avoid the connotation of a lesser or aberrant variant? The argument may well be etymological in source: variant indicates varying from some accepted standard (which is horribly POV for languages such as English with no formal standard), while alternative just indicates a spelling other (alter#Latin) than the one being featured. —Muke Tever 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I'm sure that came up too and I've always wanted to come up with some other wording besides alternate, alternative, or variant. However, being unable to, it seems that comparing the most usual sense of each that alternative has the least judgemental connotations. At least to me, the "one of several possible alternatives" sense is the more general sense with the "alternative lifestyle" sense being somewhat specialized and less likely to be the sense assumed by readers. In comparison, variant always connotes inferiority. I'm open to voting on this (we may have even done so before), and I'm very open to somebody discovering the perfect word that never has any judgemental overtones. Another possibility is to use templates and/or CSS to give readers a choice of wording. — Hippietrail 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

God forbid we use another template/CSS complication. I'll go with whatever the consensus is, rather than going that route. In reality, there is litle difference between the meanings of alternative and variant. I can't see any negatives implied in the defintions of either word. It is only the unstated assumption which is in my mind that made me prefer variant over alternative, but I can see how people might have a diffent point of view.--Richardb 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In my mind there is some subtle difference between "Alternative spelling", and "Spelling alternatives". To me the second iseems less POV. Just as "Variant spellings" would be more POV than "Spelling variants". I'd be happier with either "Spelling variants" or "Spelling alternatives", rather than "Alternative spellings" or "Varaint spellings".--Richardb 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• How about "Other spellings"? It sounds a bit less formal, but has no overtones at all of which is superior. Another possibility is "Also spelled". — Hippietrail 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, what is the problem with a template solution? To me, the main problems with templates so far are a) unpredictable or overly concise template names and b) insufficient documentation of templates. — Hippietrail 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Two quick thoughts:

1. If we used ===Template:spellings=== my Javascript would have a much nicer time cleaning up entries to make them consistent with the current standard. (Well, I would too - not just my Javascript.)
2. How about ===Spellings=== ? I'd go for that or ===Also spelled===. As I understand it, right now we are only using ===Alternative spellings=== and ===Alternative forms=== but the variety that exists in the wild, is, well, wild.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "Spellings" is a good simple idea. I think "Spelling" is even simpler and even better (-: The only possible problem I can forsee is that some people might want to include all spellings, include the one of the current page under such a section. Of course we ought to make it a Shared: section and just use JavaScript to hide the self-reference. I think we should promote the choice of this or a template solution. I would prefer to avoid the template unless too many people vehemently don't like the simpler solution. — Hippietrail 19:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

God forbid another header change! Here are a few brainstorming ideas :

===Spellings===

===More spellings===

===Contrasting spellings===

===Variant spellings===

===Other spellings===

===Different spellings===

===Dissimilar spellings===

===Additional spellings===

===Available spellings===

===Weird spellings===

===Multifarious spellings===

===Modified spellings===

===Modified spellings, especially by Noah Webster===

===Other ways of spelling this word===

===Other ways of spelling this word which are not necessarily wrong===

===Other ways of spelling this word which are utterly wrong!===

===Wrong, inconsistent, illiterate, whimsical scribbles from across the Pond===

What I would like to consider, though, apart from the above craziness, is how we can try to make the spellings section into a kind of "note", actually telling something about the spellings, instead of just listing them saying this is US, that is UK. Telling something about such and such is historical, used in this and that period etc. The list-format is just too oppositional. — Vildricianus 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give an example. I'm not sure what it is you want. I don't see anything wrong with changing heading labels which we've always had trouble with. We just need to make sure it goes into the docs and news pages and run either a bot or a server-side script. Personally I like the list format, it's nice and concise. Do you want a prose section? If so I would say that would be part of a Word history section which has been discussed in various places for some time. It would be either a subheading of Etymology or another level-3 heading below Etymology. But I would still want the non prose form so I don't have to sit and read a story when I just want to know the other ways to spell a word. — Hippietrail 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but throughout the entire discussion of some months ago, Connel kept insisting on labelling/labeling the non-US spellings "wrong" for US speakers, and vica-versa for UK/Commonwealth. I can't think of a way to do so without overhauling the system we currently use for mentioning other spellings. — Vildricianus 22:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Vil's point is excellent. Eventually we will want to have a section which lists all spellings of a word current and historical, thus showing the word's evolution to its current state. In many cases one country's standard spelling is just another country's historical spelling, so it would be relatively easy to mark it as such within that context. Widsith 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First point

Connel struck out the first point in high dudgeon. But I think he mis-read it. So I've reinstated it and slightly altered it, to reflect what I believe is happening now, sensibly. Is it now looking sensible ? --Richardb 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than unproductively strike it out again, I wrote up some thoughts on the topic above. Please continue this there, for continuity. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of intention to move to Semi-offical status

I've incorporated the suggested improvements. I think the policy is now ready to upgrade to "Semi-official" status. Which I will do in one month, unless the debate remains active at that time. (Copy of notice in policy, and at WT:BP--Richardb 11:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote called for. Need to resolve one point of dispute

Connel has asserted The notion that entering a redirect is OK, is completely unacceptable! , and persistently bases his arguments on that assertion. I would similarly assert that this is just something Connel believes, and there has never been a solid decision on this. This needs to be resolved before we can finish developing this policy.

So, I call for a vote:-

Entering a REDIRECT for a spelling alternative is OK in some circumstances.

• --Richardb 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. If I were to type "color" and get redirected to colour where I found a note indicating that "colour" and "color" were alternative UK and US spellings of the same word, I would think to myself, "Oh. `Colour' and `color' are alternative UK and US spellings of the same word." I would not take away the impression that "colour" was superior, or that "color" was wrong. Similarly, on the other hand, if I were to type "colour" and get redirected to color where I found a note indicating that "color" and "colour" were alternative US and UK spellings of the same word, I would think to myself, "Oh. `Color' and `colour' are alternative US and UK spellings of the same word." I would not take away the impression that "color" was superior, or that "colour" was wrong. Finally, since this is obviously :-) the right attitude to have, I am not worried about any other readers who might carry away from a redirect an incorrect and unwarranted impression that the redirected-from form was inferior, although I suppose those readers are out there. —scs 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Most redirects should be avoided in Wiktionary because, e.g. in the above example, a reader looking up the Spanish word color would not be well served by being redirected to colour. Because many terms must be so split to serve multiple language needs, redirects are undesirable for spelling variants in general and it seems confusing to say "redirects are OK for single-language terms." However, languages with unique scripts (e.g. Japanese) could benefit from spelling variant redirects. Rod (A. Smith) 16:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified support, NOT as it applies to dialects such as US and UK variations. Only allowed in the following cases:
  1. Equivalent transliterations of foreign language words, such as Taoism and Daoism.

     Wait, these pages need to remain separate to indicate the system of romanization in the foreign language. But there might be some cases where the romanization isn't "official" under any system.

  2. Hyphenized words where the meaning is a subset of the other, e.g. lower-case (adjective) and lowercase (noun or adjective)

     This one is quite dubious. In part I'm listing it for sake of completeness, but I would like to see the options laid out with optionally spaced words.

  3. Other pages that would be listed as see-also's that are language-independent (at the top).

     This includes Old English entries for instance, and truly equivalent variations with our without a space, possibly.

  4. Pages that would be listed as language-dependent see-also's, like crawl and crawling with.

     Although some would like to see this, it isn't current practice. However there is an open question of what to do with -in' endings in many cases.

  5. Pages that fail CFI for being encyclopedic, for which a shorter entry (like ASCII) exists, which should then link to Wikipedia.

     This depends on the disapproval of encyclopedic titles at some level.

  6. To protect pages from vandalism.

     One I only agree with on a pragmatic level rather than idealistic.

  7. Inflections of verbal and other phrases, and pronoun substitutions for one and someone.

     Potentially this could lead to a good number of redirects, but why would it be necessary to repeat yourself/ourselves/oneself on different pages?

  This is also obviously conditional upon the ability to expand an entry into a full page when it is not in fact an equivalent. ∂ανίΠα 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? Example please. — Vildricianus 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Woops, that's a redirect to error target whatever and not to an alternative spelling. Thinking too broad. ∂ανίΠα 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Entering a REDIRECT for a spelling alternative is completely unacceptable

• --SemperBlotto 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I would like to point out that four days later you yourself fixed and maintained βασιλευς as a redirect to βασιλεύς, overriding Sceptre's speedy request and then answering his rfd. Davilla 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I would like to point out that the day before you yourself changed bītan from Drago's "See bitan" into a redirect.

  About this and the above comments by Davilla: see why polls are evil? — Vildricianus 13:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• --TheDaveRoss 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC) In general, there should be NO redirects on all of Wiktionary. I also don't think that this page isn't clear enough or thurough enough to be a policy, I can hardly interpret it's intent let alone it's conclusions.

Polls are evil

• — Vildricianus 11:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why a vote for this? It's far more complicated than choosing either yes or no. It really depends on what we're used to do, and some of these habits aren't that bad, although some are. Redirects for clear variants can't go, but they can for different hyphenation forms or for varieties in diacritical marks. That's what I can think of now, but there's probably more. — Vildricianus 11:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The assertion I was asking for a vote on was a clear YES/NO. Connel asserted that REDIRECTS for spelling variants are COMPLETEY unacceptable. From your answer I would read that you disagree with this assertion, so I don't understand your vote--Richardb 08:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Richardb is asserting that entering redirects for spelling varients is (and has been) our standard practice since ages gone by. I assert that was never true. Between Richard and myself, the facts cannot be ascertained, so a vote/poll is probably helpful in this situation. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let everyone read the policy for themselves, and they will see (where you are completely blind) that I am NOT asserting what you say I am. Here I am only asking for a vote on your assertion that they are COMPLETLEY unacceptable in the case of spelling variants (yet I see you just put in a redirect for Davey Jones' locker )

Well the statement should be clearer then. There's Wiktionary:Redirections that should point out what our policy is, but its talk page is nigh empty. As this page is about English spelling variants, I'll clearly state no redirects, obviously. Like said, if it were our habits, which I doubt, they would have to change immediately.

I don't quite get what Scs is saying above, although he's said it before a while ago. Perhaps you understand that there's no bias towards one or the other...

I do, and I voted my conscience, that's all (as indeed I believe one should do in any vote or poll). But I should have left well enough alone and avoided the snide-sounding last sentence (now struck). —scs 23:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

...but the majority of users won't. I'll dig up evidence if you like. To me it's completely unacceptable to redirect colour to color or vica versa, or any other simple spelling variant for that part. A dictionary can't treat words on bases other than their spelling, because it's a written medium. As a consequence, we either treat all spellings independently or we don't. If we don't, we might as well redirect transientness to transience.

This VOTE is about whenter it is completely unacceptable to put in spelling redirects. Obviously there will be mnay, mnay cases where REDIRECTS are used, are approproate. Try reading the policy.--Richardb 08:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rod then is talking about non-English cases which again is an entirely different topic.

One simply can't polarize these things, it's not as simple as that. There's my opinion. — Vildricianus 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer separate pages for each spelling. Connel's solution for using templates for shared sections of articles should be used to ease the maintainance issues of several articles for the same word. I also prefer separate pages for variations in hyphenatino of compound terms. I do not mind redirects for idiomatic phrases which have multiple varying components. But I'm willing to go along with the popular opinion whatever it turns out to be. What we do need is a single standard name for the Alternative spellings section. "Spelling" might be the best though it's not what we use now. I strongly feel that every spelling variety should be listed whether or not we use redirects. I strongly feel that we should avoid any judgemental language suggesting that "x" is a "variant" of "y". — Hippietrail 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I hereby give up trying to formulate a policy for this, as so many people (wilfully) can't even read a policy, or read what vote is being called for.

It is quite clear from the policy that REDIRECTS will be inappropriate in many places, but preferred and appropriate in others . Yet so many people came to this vote and voted because they thought the policy said REDIRECTS were to be preferred fullstop, and that was what was being VOTED on. That is a wilfull mis-reading, or, more probably, a not bothering to read. It is futile to try to resolve contentious issues by developing a policy when so many people can't even bother to properly read the policy, or what the vote is specifically about, before they vote.

I had actually picked this area as one that would be easy to formulate a policy just by researching the archives and checking what current practice is, and documenting that, as is the normal best practice of writing policies. Where I had made a slight error, and it was pointed out, I adjusted the policy. But, ... what can I say, I just give up on you lot. Too many egos who just KNOW what is right and don't really want a policy.

I don't think you'll be seeing much more of me at Wiktionary. My view is now stronger than ever that it is headed down a blind alley - too many egos involved. And, as I've said before, I find the content for basic words bloody hopeless. Several other online dictionaries are far more reliable. I might contribute a few words and phrases (in full expectation that Connel will delete them as quickly as possible), and might come back in a few months to see if you idiots have sorted yourselves out a bit more.--Richardb 08:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

in-sync

I've stumbled across Category:Synch, a category that places all the spelling variants together. I gather that the point is that when one page (assrun) is editted, there is an onus on the user to edit its British counterpart (arserun). This idea could be implemented for color/colour, but I'm quite sure this suggestion has been raised before. Could this work? --Dangherous 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft redirects

The policy draft at the moment seems to cover the choice of a duplicate entry versus a hard redirect #REDIRECT[[]]. Has there been discussion on a soft redirect, such as this stub entry style that SemperBlotto recommended to me? The soft redirect has its advantages, but the hard redirect seems simpler for the end user. --Hroðulf 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A hard redirect is only easier for the first person to edit the entry. Thereafter, when anyone wishes to add another language to that entry, it is decidedly more difficult. And the hard redirects also do a disservice to our readers (the ultimate users) even if convenient for one editor. With a hard redirect, most newcomers don't recognize that they even have been redirected to a new spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI on dealing with edits you disagree with

It's not very helpful to go way over to the Beer Pump to "address" (to put it nicely) edits one disagrees with in this document. This document has a Talk page for a reason. I don't terribly mind that my edit was reverted (and I'm glad that Connel for one says he found something "with potential" in the material and will presumably make use of it at some point). But I had to have some third party notify me on my talk page that I was being raked over the coals over at the BP with regard to said edit (and have addressed this there in more detail). That's not particularly conducive to, well, much of anything, frankly. The short version: Edits should not be reverted wholesale if they are made in good faith and admittedly contain some value (see M:Rollback#Don'ts, second bullet.) Civility is a virtue, and personal-attack characterizations full of hyperbole like "foolhardy", "wanton" and "mess" are uncalled for. Assuming stupidity, carelessness and/or bad faith are, too; I did review this talk page before making the edit, and did not find that it adequately addressed what I was trying to say. If I said it poorly, then fine; make it better. But don't run to the big public forum and attack me. If you have a problem with an edit I make to a project page, say so on its talk page or on MY talk page, please. Lastly, it's wholly unreasonable to lash out at people for making non-vandal edits to a draft policypage. The entire point of such pages is that they get edited by the community! That's how they eventually become policies/guidelines in the first place. Sheesh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: To be clear, I am way more of a Wikipedian than Wiktionarian, so if I've somehow transgressed a Wiktionary-specific policy, I'll happily apologize and would appreciate a pointer to said policy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A new idea

As an introductory example, I would ask the reader to check the entries acknowledgment and acknowledgement. As far as I know (I'm not a native speaker, I must confess) the words mean exactly the same, but they have different sets of definitions, translations, derived terms etc. This makes absolutely no sense for anyone who tries to actually use Wiktionary for any useful purpose, such as a reference or a translation aid. As a solution, I propose that we create a new kind of entry header, which combines the two different spellings. It might look like this: acknowledgment / acknowledgement. The pages acknowledgment and acknowledgement would then be redirected to this new page and the texts merged by taking the best parts of each. There are some technical problems, such as that {{en-noun}} template would not work, but I'm sure that someone in the community has the skills required to write a suitable template for this purpose. The links would not be destroyed, because they could be made to work over the REDIRECT -pages. Hekaheka 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

State of this page

It seems we have the discussion on the policy page, not here! Anyway I removed this as directly against our current priniciples:

• Use a simple REDIRECT entry if, in your opinion, as the creator of the variant entry, the spelling you are entering is simply a valid variant of an already existing entry, and you can see no difference in meaning, usage, etymology etc. eg: naivety, naivete, naiveté, naïveté; tea cup, tea-cup, teacup.

It's almost written in a comical fashion, like a deliberate joke, but I don't think it is. Anyway, maybe protecting this page is a job first step looking at the awful state of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

alternative capitalisation

Ok, I do not know, nor do I really want to know, who proposed this part of the proposal but anyway IMO (valid) alternative capitalisations should not be handled via redirects we have {{alternative capitalization of}} for that and I think it should stay that way; to quote Ivan Štambuk in a recent discussion "REDIRECTS ARE EVIL" :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)