Talk:cardridge
Approved as an adjective for "cartridge?"
[edit]Remember, this isn't just relating to the "retro cartridge style" used for games. It also applies to ROM cards, SD cards, and etc. I've been suffering from mental illness, if anyone cares. Steven Justin (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- It appears quite a lot (and not just the name), but in every case I looked at, it was a misspelling of cartridge, often with the correct spelling elsewhere in the same work. I notice that the editor who introduced the term is prone to adding protoneologisms. Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's sort of what I thought. However, Google image search has some things that look like card. Don't know what they are. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I googled "cardridge + cartridge + card" and the first page of Google matches were all obvious misspellings (bear in mind that US pronunciation sometimes suggests this spelling, as in pardner). Just kill it as an error. We don't have to keep everyone's misspelling. If language is going to be completely made up by errors then why would you have a dictionary? Our role is as an authority; we needn't be rigidly prescriptive but we need to separate good texts from random typos, and I am increasingly concerned about how we take three typos to mean "valid alternate form" just because it technically meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- You have a point there. And I am probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to finding citations for such words. When words are RFV'd, It seems like there is a presumption that the word is invalid, and I get caught up in the search for evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, with RFD, it is the opposite - the word is presumed valid unless there is sufficient consensus that it is not. So when we look at what is essentially a spelling error, RFV can fail us, because we find enough cites to meet CFI, but if it really is an error, I think it is not too hard to get consensus that that is what is going on by challenging at RFD.
- In this particular case, the supplied definition does not seem to even meet RFV. I have added a separate "misspelling of" definition, which is what most of the quotes seem to be - and personally, I think it looks like a common enough misspelling that such an entry is useful. Kiwima (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Heh, I think you have been a bit guilty, but I hesitate to accuse probably the project's best citer (and my remarks weren't specifically aimed at you). I do think that if you're scraping the barrel when you find the cites then they would better belong on the Citations page, as marginal; but who knows... Regarding misspelling entries, I'll raise a vote about that some day, but I'm an awful ball of inertia and it might take years. Equinox ◑ 08:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is OK now. I think I have figured out what the original editor meant but could not put into words. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- RFV failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)