Talk:gate crash

Verification debate

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

The following is from WT:RFD#gate crash

This has a space in. The verb does not. Only two matches on Google Groups, both of which I'd regard as errors, and probably none in Books. Equinox ◑ 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks attestable, though not common. Same with gate-crash. How about converting to alternative spelling and marking as "uncommon"" They are likely to be re-entered if deleted, being college-student-y. Keep and/or Move to/treat as RfV. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hummm, I'd go for "misspelling" rather than "alternative spelling", and since we only deal in "common misspellings" then one that's "uncommon" (as you suggest) would not make the cut. It seemed to me not at all common enough to be sincerely called an alternative. Equinox ◑ 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that we have a standard by which it can be called a misspelling. Is it a misspelling if no other dictionary has it as a spelling? We usually interpret it that if another dictionary has it, it must be at least an alternative, believing that other dictionaries are more selective/limited than we are. I've wondered out loud for some time what are standards were for alternative vs. common mis- vs. uncommon mis-spellings were. I don't know that it is worthwhile to bother counting any spellings differing only in space and hyphen as misspellings. We may need them all to get users to the entries they need. "uncommon" seems like a non-prescriptive way of warning people in the absence of a clear accepted standard of what constitutes a misspelling. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. The rules are awful about this, though. I've long thought that somebody who wanted to make trouble without actually breaking any rule could just add a hundred thousand unacceptable and clearly accidental misspellings by finding the measly three "citations" of each on Usenet. Equinox ◑ 03:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if we had a lot of these. As long as they directed users to the right place and were marked as uncommon or something similar. DCDuring TALK 10:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now on WT:RFV, continue the discussion here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cited, so closing. Anyone not happy? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but only two of those quotations are for the verb. —Ruakh_TALK 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bugger and blast. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited: I've added one more verb quotation. —Ruakh_TALK 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)