Talk:deadwrong

RFV discussion: February–April 2017
Are there enough uses of this (not scannos, etc)? If so the main entry still would have to be at. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi DCDuring, you are right and I am erm dead-wrong about it being a closed compound. I looked it up on Google Books, and there it indeed seems to appear as a closed compound word in scannos, but after a further check: in the actual texts I only encountered it as a hyphenated compound dead-wrong and as an open compound dead wrong. Usage of the closed compound can be found online, but not sure whether I can find such usage in durably archived sources. So in short, I am supportive of a move to "dead-wrong" or "dead wrong". Morgengave (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * would not meet CFI though, being a sum-of-parts term. — Kleio (t · c) 23:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. It's a commonly used intensifier. I am supportive of a deletion. Morgengave (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite ironic actually. I would like to see it kept as dead wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, does the logical antonym dead right exist? I can't say I've heard it used.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It does indeed exist, though it's not as common, of course (just Google it). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "dead wrong" is a common enough combination in BrE. "deadwrong" and "dead-wrong" seem to me to be errors. Mihia (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

While I gave up on looking for actual uses of deadwrong among the scannos on Google Books, it is, indeed, used in the newsgroups. There are many examples. Here are a requisite three cites: Kiwima (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you prefer Google books, I found three cites there:
 * Kiwima (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this, Kiwima -- much appreciated that you took the time to find these. I have added these six attestions to the lemma, and I believe we can close the RfV now. Morgengave (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that all these usage examples are just errors. I liken it to the usual suspect "alot". You can find as many examples of "alot" as you like, but that doesn't make it correct. Similarly, piling on more and more examples of "deadwrong" doesn't make it correct. Mihia (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be, but we are of course here to describe usage, not to prescribe it. I am supportive to add a label like rare, non-standard or proscribed. Morgengave (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that labels such as non-standard or proscribed do prescribe usage, and rightly so. A dictionary that regurgitates incorrect usage without any editorial judgement is no use to anyone. Mihia (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We should indeed give 100% clarity that many other users will consider it incorrect, but we should not exclude any attested usage because of this. Morgengave (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be, but we are of course here to describe usage, not to prescribe it. I am supportive to add a label like rare, non-standard or proscribed. Morgengave (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that labels such as non-standard or proscribed do prescribe usage, and rightly so. A dictionary that regurgitates incorrect usage without any editorial judgement is no use to anyone. Mihia (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We should indeed give 100% clarity that many other users will consider it incorrect, but we should not exclude any attested usage because of this. Morgengave (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No matter what is done to justify the entry, it's an extremely non-standard form of dead wrong, end of story. DonnanZ (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We can label it that way, but it still is sufficient justification for an entry for dead wrong under WT:COALMINE. At least one respected linguist considered solid spelling good evidence (not necessarily sufficient) of idiomaticity of the form spelled with a space. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This has passed RFV and been moved to RFD Kiwima (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–August 2017
This seems deletable as a rare misspelling of dead wrong or dead-wrong. The regulation is WT:CFI. does not even find "deadwrong", and therefore, frequency ratio cannot be determined with the use of GNV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Recently raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#deadwrong. Mihia (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and in WT:RFV, Kiwima found attesting quotations so this is going to pass RFV. It can still be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes it a misspelling rather than an emergent spelling or a pronunciation spelling? DCDuring TALK 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistent with my long-term stance, a spelling whose frequency ratio to its alternative spelling is very low (or very high, from the other direction) is likely a misspelling. For the above spelling, no frequency can even be determined in GNV. What is your criterion for a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a criterion or criteria. I'm glad I don't because it seems that your plausible criterion has gotten this one deadwrong. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as a rare misspelling. Of the relatively few books that use "deadwrong", many also use "dead wrong", which suggests that the use of the rare nonstandard spelling is an unintentional error rather than deliberate. Other books only use the term once, preventing such an analysis. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wildly nonstandard. Equinox ◑ 12:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RFD deleted per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)