The real question is whether it's a tinny word or a woody word.

Very frequently, someone who is bad at spelling will confuse two homonyms. On occasion, such a person will declare that their convention is correct in the face of all opposition. The comments you - who are amused by word substitutions - have written could equally have been written by an arrogant ignoramus.

If you want to make a joke by substituting "quail" for "quale", you need to set it up more explicitly.

(Regarding the substitution of "wang" for "wand": "wang" is not an expected typographical or orthographical error for "wand" - as the letters "d" and "g" are separated and the sounds "nd" and "ng" are likewise distinguished - so the substitution is unlikely to be accidental. That doesn't hold here.)

I really don't get why quail is supposed to be an inherently funny word? It's a small rather uninteresting bird that lays quite tasty eggs. It doesn't trigger any humour response for me.