Talk:Draft

message: "Drafting (but not draughting) can mean: Drafting, technical drawing and engineering drawing in engineering and architecture".  Not sure that this is true.  Although "drafting" is the more common spelling even in the UK, "draughting" seems to be correct too. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/draught?view=uk and other Oxford dictionaries give "draught" vb as an alternative to "draft" vb.  (And interestingly "draughtsman" is the British spelling for the agent-noun except where legal documents are concerned, in which case "draftsman" is the preferred, but not mandatory, spelling.)  -22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could easily have been deleted as a dict-def article. But if the technology of ensuring adequate convective draft in chimneys is not elsewhere adequately covered, that might be at least a working title for such an article. --Jerzy•t 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New to section headers 

message: The following may not have any place in WP, since it is so much more lexicographic than encyclopedic. In any case, it can never be part of a Dab page:
: ===Note on spelling===
:In British English the word is spelled draught in some senses and draft in others. It is draught beer, a draught horse, a draught meaning a current of air or a ship's minimum depth of water to float, and the game draughts - all of which retain the older spelling draught. The simplified spelling draft is used for a plan or sketch, for a preliminary version of a document and for the verb meaning to write it, for an order of payment, and for military conscription (although this last meaning is not as common as in American English). In the USA the spelling is draft in all these cases.
--Jerzy•t 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it not have a place in the article? Given a fairly complex matrix of different spellings for different meanings, in British and American English, the DAB page is the only suitable place for this information. It is a useful and accurate note, and seems to me perfectly "encyclopaedic". I have reinstated it, and I'd be grateful for further discussion here before anyone deletes it again. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: * The obvious answer is that Draft is not an article. And conversely, if there is indeed no "suitable place for this information" elsewhere in WP, there is no place for it in WP, Bob's your uncle, end of story, bcz there is no place for it on a Dab page. Wiktionary is a suitable place that info. That fact doesn't prove there's no place for it in WP (tho it makes it likely), but it does mean you have offered no valid argument for it being here.  If you are convinced a usage-and-spelling article is possible, write it as an article, with a proper lead sentence, and sections as needed (even tho such articles usually evoke great skepticism). (I won't try to predict whether i'll argue for Del, when it almost inevitably hits AfD, but before you get to that point you certainly should come up with your refs, bcz even tho lack of refs doesn't establish non-verifiability, it presently sounds enough like one person's OR that it'll draw in irrelevant hostility and thus Del opinions.) Or consider fitting your info into American and British English spelling differences.   As to all the last three edits, i was about to be unfairly harsh: i see that no one had added  to this talk page; i was personally mistaken in believing i had mentioned the need to study MoSDab and Dab, if you expect to do more than add an entry or replace a lk on the accompanying page and not have your edit unceremoniously reverted. But suffice it to say that you can have substantial experience editing articles without having the slightest idea of the difference between a Dab and an article. --Jerzy•t 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: This has been discussed before, but we will begin a new discussion, as it seems to be necessary.  Disambiguation pages are not articles.  They exist solely for navigational purposes.  Content regarding spelling and word usages is not appropriate here.  This is wiktionary content at best.  The spelling issue, as it relates to navigation (the purpose of this page), has already been addressed by the fact that typing in either "d-r-a-f-t" or "d-r-a-u-g-h-t" will bring you to this page.  This page contains both draft and draught in the introductory sentence, and contains links to articles with both spellings.  If you feel that information about the spelling differences is necessary to assist users in finding the articles they seek, you need to propose a very brief addition to the introduction.  It may or may not be accepted by other editors, but it has a much better chance of acceptance than an entire section of the page devoted to such content.  Again, the issue is navigation.  This page exists only to help users distinguish between various Wikipedia articles which may be known as "Draft" or "Draght". SlackerMom (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I am very happy to discuss it. I asked for a second opinion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, but all that happened was that someone came in and deleted the section about spellings with no explanation other than that it is "against WP:MOSDAB". I know that! But in my opinion the section is (a) useful and (b) supported by WP:MOSDAB#Break_rules. If others disagree, so be it. But it would be nice to be given the courtesy of a hearing, instead of simple reversion without discussion. I completely agree that it is not the primary function of a DAB page to discuss things like spelling variation, and that both "draft" and "draught" lead to this page, so nobody is really inconvenienced. But they may still be puzzled, and that puzzlement may well occur at the level of the DAB page as much as at each individual article. And when (as is the case) a very few words could clear up the puzzlement, why not do it? I feel that a note at the end of the page does not get in the way, does not distract anyone from the main function of the page, and can devote sufficient space to explain the issue properly. The issue is that some of the words are always spelt draft, one is always draught, and some can be either, depending on circumstances and/or version of English. So it's not quite as simple as "draft or draught may mean...". I think inserting some words in the introduction would actually be more obtrusive that the paragraph at the end - but how about something like "Draft (the usual American spelling) or draught (the British spelling in some instances) may mean..." I wouldn't be in favour of expanding each entry to say things like "Draught (or draft) beer ..." SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but I still do not think a discussion of the spelling differences belongs on this dab page.  Your proposed intro is getting closer to the right answer, in my opinion.  What about including a hatnote (or an addition to the intro) that says something like,  For a discussion of the American and British spelling variations, see draught and draft?  That way we can keep the discussion on the proper WP page, but still make it easily available for those who are puzzled.  Or I suppose we could make it a link under "See also", if you think it would be better at the bottom of the page. SlackerMom (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea. A hatnote would certainly satisfy me. I must confess that I hadn't noticed the extensive treatment of the topic at American_and_British_English_spelling_differences. Given that it is there, it certainly makes sense to direct the reader to it. Much better, in fact, than duplicating the information here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Super-duper!  I'll figure out how to make it look right and I'll give it a try on the page, and you see what you think of it. SlackerMom (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling section