Talk:powerstructure

RFV discussion: December 2013–June 2014

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

powerstructure

Could be, but is it really attestable? DCDuring TALK 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it has been attested already at WT:RFD#power structure. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added three four citations to the entry. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Any from native speakers? Is it common enough to be a common misspelling? DCDuring TALK 20:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's one by an American, but you'll have to turn sideways to read it. I wouldn't call this a misspelling, since no letters have been substituted. bd2412 T 20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: There also appears to be a separate meaning in math.[1], [2], [3], [4]. bd2412 T 04:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• RFV passed: quotations are in the entry. For relative frequencies, see power structure,(powerstructure*500) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)