Talk:doordeweek
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lingo Bingo Dingo in topic RFV discussion: December 2020–January 2021
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Green_check.svg/55px-Green_check.svg.png)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
This connected spelling is difficult to attest and is probably a (rare) misspelling in any case. Can be moved to door de week if this fails, because I think it is idiomatic. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- It does not occur in the official Woordenlijst, finds no recognition here and even explicit disapproval here, which however implies it does occur. Some uses can be seen here (in a book title!), here, here and here. The three-word version has an (IMO) opaque meaning and so deserves an entry. --Lambiam 14:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Lambiam So I guess this will pass insofar RFV is concerned, but it could probably be removed in RFD as a rare misspelling?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)- I am not sure how to decide whether a misspelling is rare, but apparently people wonder how they should spell the term and so may attempt to look it up. Personally I’d be OK either way: with keeping doordeweek while noting that this univerbated orthographic innovation is met with opprobrium from those in the know, or with merely observing this at a new entry door de week. --Lambiam 23:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- If I search for "door de week" on Google Books I get 77,400 results, but for "doordeweek" I get 1,040 results and many of them, quite possibly a majority of them, are scannos of door de week. "Rare misspelling" is ill-defined, but it is policy not to keep rare ones. Dan Polansky was wont to use a heuristic that a misspelling with fewer than 1% of the results of a main spelling should be considered rare.
- That said, I am not opposed to some form of inclusion of this form, such as a soft redirect; it is not really deductively provable that this is a misspelling so including it anyway does not really override CFI. A hard redirect is another option.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to decide whether a misspelling is rare, but apparently people wonder how they should spell the term and so may attempt to look it up. Personally I’d be OK either way: with keeping doordeweek while noting that this univerbated orthographic innovation is met with opprobrium from those in the know, or with merely observing this at a new entry door de week. --Lambiam 23:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Lambiam So I guess this will pass insofar RFV is concerned, but it could probably be removed in RFD as a rare misspelling?
- RFV kept, I'll turn it into a soft redirect.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)