Talk:scharmant
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
since 2004 no longer a official German word according to „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung”,
see page 31 of "Regeln 2006"
and list of words 2006, page 132
--J. Lunau (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- So? It's listed as an alternative spelling, and as long as it has been used in print in the past we can include it here. Also, you put the "RFV" tag on it but listed it at RFC -- are you asking for verification or cleanup? —Angr 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the tag from rfc to rfv as that seemed to be the author's intention, I will delist it from rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could this be called dated? 2004 seems much too recent to be called archaic or obsolete. Do German speakers stick to official word lists? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Cleaned up by adding a "dated" tag. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Mglovesfun sorry for the confusion about rfv / rfc and thank you for correcttion
- @Angr please tell me, where it is listed as an alternative spelling? The online Duden does no longer list, because the former alternative spelling was withdraw by the „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung”. But maybe I am wrong, than of course the word should stay and I would add it to german Wiktionary as well. --J. Lunau (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- @J. Lunau we base our information on how people use words, not on other dictionaries. If a word is withdrawn from a word list, all the instances of the word being used are not magically erased. The best example I can think of is French savoir, which was spelt sçavoir for centuries. But when the spelling was reformed to savoir, the term sçavoir didn't magically disappear from many thousands of texts. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Our entry scharmant is labeled an alternative spelling. We don't follow what Duden or the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung say, we follow how people actually write and have written in the past. I think RFV really is the right place for this: if we can find attestations of people spelling the word this way, then we can keep the entry, though it can be labeled not only "alternative spelling" but also
{{nonstandard}}and probably{{rare}}as well (even before 2004 this was hardly a common spelling, I think). —Angr 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)- Even if Wiktionary doesn't follow the Duden or the Ortography Reform, these rules are used in schools, government and many printed publications. So whether a spelling is "official" in this sense is important information that should be included in the Wiktionary entries. There exists a template (de-usage obsolete spelling) that can be used in the usage notes. However, I fail to see that scharmant is obsolete. This published word list of 2006 still contains the spelling: [1]. Is the list given by user J. Lunau maybe a draft? So until there are better references, I would suggest to remove the "dated" tag. --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. It's listed in the published list under C after the entry for charmant. --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Mglovesfun sorry for the confusion about rfv / rfc and thank you for correcttion
- Yes. Cleaned up by adding a "dated" tag. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could this be called dated? 2004 seems much too recent to be called archaic or obsolete. Do German speakers stick to official word lists? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the tag from rfc to rfv as that seemed to be the author's intention, I will delist it from rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unless this really may not exist (or have existed) in German, it shouldn't be at RFV. If citations are needed to confirm whether it's dated or obsolete or not, this is the right forum (or as good as any other, WT:ID, WT:TR for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added a 2012 citation, plenty of 2011 citations too; I consider the matter closed unless someone has new evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Based on the edit by J. Lunau, of which the edit summary was "Requests for deletion - no official German word according to „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung”, see page 31 of this document: http://rechtschreibrat.ids-mannheim.de/download/regeln2006.pdf". He/she tagged it with {{rfc}}, which I'd imagine was a typo for rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are lots of German hits on Google book search, but many use the old Gothic script. I have only a babel 0.5 de rating so don't feel comfortable supplying the quotations. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I shouldn't have listed this; I will remove this section in a day or so. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)