Talk:sugardaddie

RFV discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

This spelling (as opposed to sugar daddy) is turning up mostly URLs rather than usage of the word. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a Web site. I speedied it when it was first created yesterday. Equinox ◑ 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sd305 evidently spells the word this way. Is he connected with the website? I suggest that we just redirect to the correct spelling, or replace the entry with deliberate mis-spelling of. Dbfirs 11:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found what appear to be two independent uses of "sugardaddie"

Along with 4 for "sugar daddie" [1], [2], [3], [4]. Although given that these are all the hits that don't refer to the website I'm guessing it's not exactly common. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Another, but I can only see a "snippet": [5]. I did replace it with {{rare}} {{alternative spelling of, but the newbie reverted me. (Since it's used in what appears to be a Ruth Rendell-edited book, I didn't like to consider it a misspelling.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it might just be a rare alternative (rather than a mis-spelling). I suppose there are lots of these diminutive forms that can be found of we search for them, but we don't even have daddie, and that's much less rare, with 22,200 bgc hits. Dbfirs 16:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Two senses are listed on the page:

• 1. (slang) A man who spends money for the benefit of a younger person, especially a younger woman.
• 2. (rare) Alternative spelling of sugar daddy.

Sugar daddy, in turn, defines itself as:

• 1. (slang) A man who spends money for the benefit of a younger person, especially a younger woman.

I have removed this redundancy (removing sense 1 from sugardaddie), but for the moment I have left the entry as an "alternative spelling" page. — Beobach 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have cited said, using the four best Usenet cites (which includes both of the ones that Thryduulf quotes above). I haven't added msh210's book cite, because we have just so little metadata for it, but if anyone has ready access to that book to determine author/date/title/etc., it would be nice to include. —Ruakh_TALK 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A "rare common misspelling"

This appears to be a misspelling. However, because of that template, it now shows as "(rare) common misspelling of..." unfortunately. Equinox ◑ 21:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–August 2016

See Talk:seismogramme#RFD discussion: March–August 2016.