Talk:dord

From RfD

Well it's 100% interesting but since other non-words such as accidently aren't allowed to be classified as English, it seems hypocritical that dord is allowed to be. I would change the format but have no idea what to since the misspelling format doesn't fit either. Perhaps just no language label, a statement that it's a non-word, and a wikipedia link. — Hippietrail 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is accidently not allowed to be classified as English? Ncik 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - interesting (oh, I see, it is not English really) - Παρατηρητής 12:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Accidently" is not classified as English because it is not an English word - the correct spelling is "accidentally". Neither is "dord" an English word. (Actually, this is "Dord", with a capital "D". The story behind this word is that when a dictionary was being compiled, one of the entries to be put in was "D. or d. - density" (meaning that "D." and "d." are abbreviations of density) but this was misread as "Dord - density".) Not a word, at least, not in English. Delete — Paul G 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - the "English" header is appropriate for "accidently2 because this is a misspelling in the English language. "English" can therefore be read as "information about the English language" rather than "what follows are English terms". Apologies for any confusion. — Paul G 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this word: it's an example of something called a "ghost form" which is a typo that is construed by readers (whence the senior editor) as being factual. Another is "morf", for m(ale) or f(emale). Interesting indeed, Παρατηρητής! What a keen observer! ;-) Anyway, maybe someone should make a Wikitrivia for certain vagaries such as these. Whaddaya think? Sound wikiable? … (sorry, that was a shtunkvits!)—Strabismus 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record I do want to keep this and do believe it should come under the English heading. I don't feel strongly that misspellings belong in Wiktionary but if we have them they should be under the language heading for which they are a misspelling. The idea that putting either accidently or dord under the English heading classifies it as a bonafide English word is just going too far. It's a language classification - not a validity classification. Validity belongs in the article. — Hippietrail 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

If unattestable, consign to Appendix:Words found only in dictionaries. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an RFV issue. The community has in the past opted to keep certain non-citable entries, such as this and also hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia etc., based I guess on notability or something. That precedent needs to be overturned, but I think it needs to be overturned in the same way it was established -- through RFD. -- Visviva 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should it matter where the precedent is overturned? There is now a material difference in the situations of then and now: the existence of appendices to which these notable terms may be consigned. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. DAVilla 04:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, consigned per Doremítzwr. I tend to agree with Visviva, except that I've read the RFD discussion, and the number of "keep" votes is underwhelming. There obviously wasn't consensus to delete it at the time, but there also wasn't consensus to keep it as a normal word. I see the appendical (?) consignment as a long-belated implementation of what the commenters in that discussion were driving at. —Ruakh_TALK 01:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Appendical, BTW, is A-OK. :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)