Talk:Draft

New to section headers
"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)~

Er, what happened to Draft (air)? 86.121.177.217 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Removed section
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)


 * 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)
 * 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 DisambigProject 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)

I cannot for the life of me see why we should not include the note on spelling. Why not on a disambiguation page? It's useful encyclopedic information, and would simply be lost in American and British English spelling differences. All sorts of dab pages have bits of information that is not there strictly to point to other articles. See, for example, Elk (disambiguation), which includes useful information on the origin and history of the word. It makes perfect sense to include a note on the origins and variations of a word at the one place that acts a central point of reference for that word. And in this case, as for elk, the dab page is the right place. I am familiar with WP:MOSDAB, but I think this is a clear case where it is helpful to ignore the rules. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Why delete “** Draft (animals), selecting an animal or animals from the mob and separating them” when there is no reference to this in Wikipedia and leave in a reference to “Drought’ which has no connection to draft?? Cgoodwin (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One good answer to that question, as posed, is that (just as there are 2.5 million articles on WP, and no one editor is responsible for the quality of all of them) no one editor who improves an article has to make sure the rest of the article is perfect. And no imperfection in an article is justification for making it or any other article worse. In this case (especially since i not only left it in the article but moved it around, and considered whether to remove it), i don't mind being more specific. The "See also" sections of Dab pages (and in this, as in most aspects, Dab pages stand in contrast, as to standards, to article pages) is for lks to articles that a careful, reasonably well-informed user will not normally be looking for under the title of the Dab page, even tho a careless, ignorant, or momentarily deceived user might. Drought was at the very top of the page (where it could be appropriate on an article named Draught) bcz "drought" is
 * one of the terminally confusing -ugh- words that are a pronunciation pitfall for young and new speakers of English, and
 * a source of further confusion bcz of its interchangeable synonym "droughth" (even tho someone -- Dave? -- mocked his Bushiness the other night, as if W had made up the word),
 * so that some previous editor's judgment that it's reasonable to anticipate an occasional user coming here when looking for the main article on drought. More to the point, there are several reasons why
 * ** Draft (animals), selecting an animal or animals from the mob and separating them
 * cannot appear on the accompanying Dab page, some of them applicable regarding any other Dab page as well.
 * The entry is ungrammatical. "Draft" in the context of the post-comma portion is a verb, and that portion is a nominative phrase.
 * Animal is a (29 Kb) article on a very broad subject; i honestly didn't bother checking until now, but i considered it obvious, and it is true, that the article says nothing on the topic of drafting animals -- and doesn't even contain the string "draft". If you'll undertake the reading i suggested, you'll see that since anyone who came to [[Draft looking for encyclopedic knowledge about drafting animals, and followed the link you are defending, would have their time wasted by following that link, the link is contrary to our purposes in writing a 'pedia, and must not appear.
 * Beyond the counterproductive lk, the wording is, as i said in my initial summary hopelessly a dictionary definition. Dict Defs server one purpose on WP: a good and pertinent dictdef almost always makes a good lead sentence for an article. No words on a Dab page do any good (and thus provide harmful clutter) unless they help users get to the articles they want. If you want to write an article called "drafting animals", give it a shot, and it can appear, at least in the See also section of a Dab -- not this one, bcz we don't write articles (except in cases too rare to distract us here) with verbs as titles; "drafting animals" is a nominative phrase and potentially a reasonable article title. It would go on the dab Drafting, bcz a reasonably knowlegable use would look on "draft" only for topics where draft is the most prominent noun; articles on how animals are drafted belong, if at all, on a Dab page with a nominative title corresponding to the verb draft.
 * The Dab entry has to help the user find the relevant matter. For example, i changed
 * Draft (combustion), the incoming flow of air of a Boiler or engine
 * to
 * Draft, incoming flow of air to burn fuel for a boiler or engine
 * bcz the piping via "Draft (combustion)" suggested that the use expect that article title as the result of following the link, leading to discomfort when that's not true, and the the longer piping is a tip to look for other words ("controlling" might further serve that purpose, but i found it misleading, since the topic applies where there's no specific control.

(I may add more to this another day, soon, but please make use of this lick-and-a-promise for now.) --Jerzy•t 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling section
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)


 * 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. 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 - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

bank draft / banker's draft / sight draft
When someone (preferably someone who understands banking) has time, I recommend taking a look at these three articles! Are we dealing with three different things, or two, or just one? I think it's two at most, and it may be just one... I will also take this to the discussion pages for the three articles - but it seemed worth airing it here too. Whatever the answer is, this page will probably need some amendments/additions. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Seven years pass...)
 * Bank draft redirects to Cashier's check.
 * Banker's draft should definitely be merged with Cashier's check:
 * A banker's draft (also called a bank cheque, bank draft in Canada or, in the US, a cashier's check) is a cheque (or check) where the funds are taken directly from the financial institution rather than the individual drawer's account.
 * Sight draft now redirects — I have no idea if correctly — to Bankers' acceptance, which is a very different animal indeed: "Banker's acceptances are typically sold in multiples of US $100,000."
 * --Thnidu (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)