Talk:greetz

I don't think this word deserves an entry in the wiktionary. It seems to me to be no more than a non-standard spelling of an existing word. It may be currently in somewhat widespread use, but there is no indication of it replacing the original, or of it taking on a meaning of its own. Furthermore, if we include "greetz", we must also consider an infinite variety of other alternative spellings to existing words, and that can't be the purpose of this dictionary. If no one objects within 2 weeks, I will gladly delete this entry. Rubseb (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh you're a global administrator of some sort are you? Otherwise, how will you delete the entry? Anyway, just no, just really, really no. See WT:CFI, per yourself "a non-standard spelling of an existing word" well that's a word then, we have {{nonstandard spelling of}} precisely for cases like this. Also "and that can't be the purpose of this dictionary". Again see WT:CFI line one "all words in all languages". So, yes it is indeed the purpose of this dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I added this entry. It seems comparable to (deprecated template usage) gangsta or (deprecated template usage) boyz, which we have entries for. (Gangsta is in some mainstream dictionaries, even.) Equinox ◑ 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you love it when redlinked n00bz threaten that they'll delete pages and even give us a deadline? Wow. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

He/she only said he'd be glad to delete it. I don't think we should disregard reasonably-stated views just because the person isn't a regular. I would have looked on boyz etc. the same way when I first came to Wiktionary, from a background of traditional print dictionaries, and I still agree that we need to be careful about which (highly attestable) ones we include. P.S. congratz is another one that we have, even more similar to this. Equinox ◑ 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)