Talk:crossectional

RFV discussion: December 2014

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

---

crossectional

I would argue that cross-sectional is the correct spelling, and that this entry should be relegated to secondary status, providing this spelling can be verified. Donnanz (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is very easy to cite. Crossectional does seem to be hundreds of times rarer than cross-sectional, so I'd support the move. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Move main entry per SMurray, retaining citable crossectional as secondary. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Detagged as not being disputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but isn't the detagging premature?? Donnanz (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

“crossectional”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that we are the only reference to have it there. It could easily be considered a misspelling, which raises that question of whether it is a "common" one. Retagged. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

[[crossectional]] now appears as the alternative spelling, but is not cited. I hold it to be an uncommon misspelling. Prove me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFV passed; plentiful attesting quotations available at google books:"crossectional". As for whether this is a misspelling and a common one, we have RFD for that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  They aren't in the entry. We are the only reference that has it. It needs citations. Or it can be promptly RfDed as a uncommon misspelling. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Skipping the un-preview-able books which use it in the title (where it is impossible to tell if it is a misspelling, typo or even scanno / OCR error), the first three books which use "crossectional" in their text also use "cross-sectional", which is the sort of evidence we've traditionally taken as suggesting that the books' uses of the otherwise-unrecognized spelling might be misspellings and/or typos. (The three books are Fouling in Silicon Microchannel Designs, →ISBN; The ULTIMATE Tesla Coil Design and Construction Guide, →ISBN; and Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium, →ISBN.)

  This page is the usual and correct place to ask for citations of use, and to determine whether particular 'citations' show the word/spelling in (intentional) use and thus satisfy CFI, or are misspellings and don't satisfy CFI.

  Tangential: another rare spelling which deletes one of its parent (lemma) spelling's "s"s is transexual. It was described as a misspelling until an IP changed to "alternative"... but in that case, the IP is correct that the rare one-"s" spelling is an alternative rather than a misspelling, since the first two Google Books hits it gets specifically discuss "the use of transexual with one s" (How Sex Changed, →ISBN and gloss "transsexual" as "transexual" (Gay, Straight, and In-between, →ISBN, respectively, before they go on to use the one-"s" spelling.

  - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  Other trans- words in that category are tranship and transhipment; this shouldn't happen to trans-Siberian (I wonder whether Trans-Siberian should be changed) though. Donnanz (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  Looking at them, I think all of those books are compilations of scientific papers, where each chapter has a different author. It's not surprising that they contain both forms, although it indicates lazy editing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit hasty maybe, I just believed what the other editors were saying, e.g. that it's abundantly attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why we like citations in the entry (or on the citations page). DCDuring TALK 22:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in CFI though, it doesn't mention attestations in the entry just attestations. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As we can't legislate that citers have more time, energy, or consideration of others to insert cites in the entry for ease of inspection by others, we would have to settle for rules that do not let RfVs close prematurely without citations, especially when no other dictionary has a similar definition or the term is a misspelling. Those are the cases, I think that benefit most from citations in the entry. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Cited IMHO. There are many more cites available, almost entirely from technical works, many by authors whose name suggests that they may not be native speakers. I'd consider it a relatively uncommon misspelling. One article used three different spellings. The others used only this spelling multiple times. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• RFV passed 2, now also with approval by DCDuring, it seems; striking out the heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, Dan, I approve of the cites that I took the trouble to actually insert in the entry for the benefit of those who might wonder about the validity of the entry and the quality of Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed the RFV. I think it's OK this time... Donnanz (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)