Verification for misspelling
Can an expert address this and verify? The Sivistyssanakirja does indeed give a null hit for vuorottainen and a valid for vuoroittainen. (Sivistyssanakirja uses the Institute for the Languages of Finland [www.kotus.fi] as one of its sources, so it is probably a reasonable verification.)
Ironically, or just to make things complicated, no language guide on KOTUS contains either of the words and so would give a definite answer, but their domain does contain a Swedish–Finnish word list, that displays vuorottainen  at "turvis vuorottainen". ~ Nelg (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, Wiktionary appears to be one of the central sources for Sivistyssanakirja. The reason why vuorottainen isn't there may simply be that we have labeled it as misspelling. It's true that it is non-standard, but I think it's worth having as it gets some 8.000 raw Google hits and more than 100 BGC hits. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
RfV February 2013
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- I would say it is common enough to be mentioned given that Finnish is a small language with only 5 million native speakers. There are 106 BGC hits and more than 8000 ordinary google search hits. In the botanical sense (alternate) it is much more common than the "correct" form. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Further, I have understood that our Finnish index (index vu) is based on Kotus wordlist, and it has both vuorottainen and vuoroittainen. It is true that vuoroittainen is grammatically correct, but there are lots of Finnish speakers who either don't know or don't give a damn. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Checking whether misspellings are common enough is an RFD issue really. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)