Talk:calibre-

How 'bout a fucking definition, rather than a stupid redirect.

Because all the information you need is at calibre. Ultimateria 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Should calibre or caliber take preference?

Currently, the Wiktionary entry for calibre has most of the information, and caliber is described just as a US variant spelling of calibre. The Google NGRAM database of word use in books scanned for the Google Books project shows that before 1900, calibre was indeed the dominant spelling. Around that time, caliber gained traction in the US, but calibre continued dominant in British English. As of 2008, caliber is 10X more common than calibre in American English, while calibre is just 3X more common than caliber in British English. Overall, caliber is more common, though that could in part reflect the number of US vs. British books scanned so far by Google. All in all, it looks like caliber is winning, making the dominance of calibre in Wiktionary seem dated.

Google NGRAM searches for caliber vs. calibre in: English, American English, and British English.

Your thoughts? Jbening 03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer separate entries, but the problem of keeping them synchronised means that the consensus in Wiktionary is that we should have only one entry (the one that was entered first in Wiktionary), with the other spelling being a soft redirect. I've never seen "caliber" in British English (at least, not since 1826), and I'm surprised that some Americans consider "calibre" to be a standard spelling in American English. Dbfirs 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

First, by no means is calibre standard in today's Am. Eng. While there are a lot of Anglophiles who might note it, they're swimming against the tide.

Next, Jbening givs us a good argument as to why the writeup should be under caliber rather than calibre. Caliber seems to be the better known and more noted shape of the word, thus more likely to be found in some writing by someone who then would need to look for the meaning ... and thus, more likely to come here.

I hold with with Dbfirs that each should hav its own writeup. I'v seen how the so-call'd consensus works on Wikt and, more often than not, it's more like bullying from a few. The 'one entry' outlook is nothing more than laziness. Yes, it's more of a hassle to keep up two but those making the writeups should make sure that both are the same as far a meanings. It's more of a hassle for the user to given a redirect and even likely the wrong impression that one spelling is better than the other.

Jbening, in the end, if you want to change the "consensus", you'll hav to go on the wikt forums and bring it up there. If you want some backing, drop me an email and I'll throw in my two cents. Otherwise, we're only spitting in the wind by whinging here.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to push for keeping separate entries (for other words), with the common definitions in template space, so that the entry for each spelling can accurately report usage, but others have argued against these suggestions, and the trend seems to be to remove separate entries, keeping the one first entered in Wiktionary (calibre in this case) with the other (so-called alternative) spelling being a soft redirect. In the past, this word has also been spelt caliver and calliper and with both single and double "ell" variants, but I'm not suggesting that we need include obsolete spellings. Perhaps we could add a usage note on spelling preferences so that readers are aware of which spelling is considered standard in each region? Dbfirs 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)