Talk:lelietje van dalen

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This is a vrongly Zpelt wort zat nieds to be diletet

I tried a delete before and was denied that so don't tell me I did is wrong again.

I am GETTING SO TIRED OF THIS.

PLEASE RESPECT OUR SPELLING.

Jcwf 05:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my user page:

We're a descriptive not a prescriptive dictionary. If it's not an approved spelling, there are several ways to indicate that such as using {{misspelling of|lang=nl}}, {{nonstandard|lang=nl}}, or {{proscribed|lang=nl}} depending on how strong the official disapproval is.

I declined to speedy because a quick google showed some usage on Dutch pages. I only went as far as using {{alternative form of|lang=nl}} because I was uncertain of how strong to word the disapproval of this spelling. — Carolina wren discussió 06:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is a misspelling than it needs to be completely stubbed to a soft redirect to the proper spelling (which means no etymology, no synonyms section, and not categorised inside Category:Dutch nouns). --Ivan Štambuk 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a misspelling: http://woordenlijst.org/zoek/?q=lelietje+van+dalen&w=w , so I stubbified the article.   AugPi 04:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out, the Wiktionary is not limited to official spellings or official word lists. Keep or much better move to the Beer Parlour and look for a consensus. I was just thinking last night about the French spelling reform - I wonder how many, if any of the reformed spellings have never actually been used, therefore would not meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I wonder whether this is really a misspelling, and per what definition of misspelling. Consider google books:"lelietje van dalen", which, apart from finding many instances with hyphens, also finds many instances without a hyphen. This looks much more like a variant spelling to me or an archaic spelling. The high rate of instances without hyphens makes it unlikely that this was a misspelling at the point at which it was written. The instances without hyphens found at Google Books seem to be of older date, such as of nineteenth century and the beginning of twenteeth century. Could it be that meanwhile the official prescriptive Dutch orthography has changed?

A usage note can be added that says that the particular spelling is procribed (discouraged) by a national orthographic body. But Wiktionary's inclusion criteria are not concerned with prescriptive orthographic bodies, as they should not.

Jcwf, please avoid using all-caps; it gives the impression of shouting. Also, while editing Wiktionary, you have to abide by agreed inclusion criteria, even if you disagree with them. If you keep adding requests for deletions to terms that clearly meet inclusion criteria by being plentifully attestable at Google books, you will only create unnecessary additional work. --Dan Polansky 09:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but when there's a spelling reform, the former spellings don' just "disappear" from books and whatnot. How about {{nonstandard spelling of}} (recently created). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)