Consider adding WUG entries for "parsable/parseable" and "migratable/migrateable"

[rclee33]

"Parsable/parseable" and "migratable/migrateable" are used in our content, and both words have accepted variant spellings. We should standardize the preferred spelling in cases where terms have accepted variant spellings.

"Parsable/parseable" is not listed in Merriam Webster, but current usage on access.redhat.com and in training content shows that "parsable" is more commonly used. (Source: word-nerds Slack convo.) Based on past and current usage, we could decide to prefer the "parsable" spelling.

"Migratable" is listed as the only spelling option in Merriam Webster, but @julian-cable reports seeing alternate spellings in training content. To address this, it might be useful to include guidance about the preferred spelling for this term.

Actually, are these items better suited as entries in the WUG, or as items for Vale to check? It's likely that there are additional similar verbs that end in "-e", where the adjective form "-able" is used in our content, and which have multiple accepted spellings. It's also possible that there is not a single guiding principle to determine which spelling is more common or preferred. IF we should treat these terms on a case-by-case basis, then maybe these are better suited as Vale rules? Should we collect more examples of this "category" of terminology?

CC @julian-cable @sffrench @daobrien What do you think?

[daobrien]

We actually have a process for things like this:

• Use whichever form appears first in MW.
• Else, use whichever form appears first in AHD.
• If, for whatever reason, there appears to be no rhyme or reason or preference, table it in WN and get consensus. We need to do what we can to "favor" en-US spelling.
• Once we've established what to use, update our dictionaries accordingly.

Sometimes you won't find these terms in the dictionary. "Parsable" is a prime example. You could pretty much call that a reverse-engineered word, or maybe a neologism (from "parse"), and we can expect to find plenty of them in our content. Some of them we keep (not a lot of choice), but others we don't (e.g., "Kerberize").

Neither "parseable" nor "parsable" appear anywhere in the current list of courses that we translate. Where did you see it?
"Migrateable" and "migratable" both appear once in DO316 in body text; "migratable" appears 3-4 times as labels.

[julian-cable]

Based on what is (or is not) listed in MW, and on the feedback that WN has already given regarding "parsable/parseable", I propose to add word usage entries to favour "parsable" and "migratable", respectively, unless referring to a function or name that uses different spelling. We can consider any other such terms as they arise. Given that both variants are currently being used in our content, I think that adding entries would help to achieve consistency.

[rclee33]

We actually have a process for things like this:

• Use whichever form appears first in MW.
• Else, use whichever form appears first in AHD.

What is "AHD"? American Heritage Dictionary? If so, I wasn't aware that this dictionary was one of our standard references. Does this list of standard sources need to be updated? https://spaces.redhat.com/spaces/PTL/pages/436543918/Style+and+Writing+Resources

Otherwise, I believe I followed the process described above, which is what lead to this ticket.

But for spelling preferences, I'm still not sure whether that warrants an entry in the WUG, or a Vale rule, or both. What's the process for determining which tool/resource to update for something like a preferred spelling between variants?

Neither "parseable" nor "parsable" appear anywhere in the current list of courses that we translate. Where did you see it?

Currently, "parsable" appears in the HLD for the RH442 update, which is currently underway.

[daobrien]

Yes, AHD = American Heritage and it's probably not formally listed anymore, but that's what we used to use (just as we used to use the MS Man of Style) and now I guess it's kind of a fallback. When we get off the beaten track a bit we can end up using that, man pages, upstream docs, Google ngrams, and more.

I wouldn't put a spelling decision in Vale; I'd put the chosen words in our dictionary and the rejected words in the "illegal-words" file.

It sounds like "parsable" is going to be a new addition - not a big surprise - and the best way to make that happen is to raise a GH issue for it in the spellr repo.

[rclee33]

I wouldn't put a spelling decision in Vale; I'd put the chosen words in our dictionary and the rejected words in the "illegal-words" file.

Ah, okay -- that approach makes good sense to me. I created a spellr issue for "parseable", but I wasn't sure which labels to add: https://github.com/RedHatTraining/spellr/issues/110