Talk:webside

RFV discussion: September 2017
I don't think this is used outside the fixed phrase. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another collocation is webside chat (alluding to fireside chat). Perhaps we need a more general definition, encompassing at least these two usages and, perhaps, others. I dunno. DCDuring (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it fails, please convert the definition to instead of deleting. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed

RFD discussion: January–September 2018
This failed RFV, but Kiwima later readded it with 4 citations. 2006 is a clear typo ("website" is used elsewhere on the same page), 2007 is an unpublished master's thesis and probably represents a true L2 error, 2008 is another typo ("website" is used everywhere else), and I can't access 2012 but the quote as input by Kiwima had obvious OCR errors. That leaves only one or two cites that are not typos. This is so uncommon when compared to that our usual policy on misspellings would not allow for it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite. A different definition (from Webside manner) was the one that failed RFV. This one has never gone through the RFV process. Kiwima (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, although it doesn't affect the RFD. Anyway, can you find the original text for the 2012 quote? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2012 quote is at google books.
 * "unpublished master's thesis": It's published (publisher being Grin as in de:w:GRIN Verlag, compare book at Grin, google books, amazon) and just a, not a master's thesis. However, is it durably archived as required by WT:CFI? (L2 speakers, self-published books and print-on-demand books aren't excluded as per WT:CFI.) -80.133.107.175 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re 2012, your link does not lead to the page in question for me. Re 2007, thanks for clarifying. You seem to have misunderstood my comment about the author being an L2 speaker; I was indicating that this is the only one I could determine to be a true linguistic error rather than a typo or thinko. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe changing the URL (.de ~ .com ~ .whatever) might work or using a proxy server. The google book with the 2012 quote has "[...] familiar with a webside called Craigslist.org, which [...]". However, according to google's text search the book has once "webside" and 37-times "website" (including compounds as in "a step-by-step website-building wizard" and proper nouns as "'The Amazing "Send Me A Dollar" Website'"). Also according to the starting pages, it might be from 2004 with 2012 being a wrong year given by google or being a digitalisation year or year of the e-book release: "[...] Corgi edition published 2004 [...] Copyright (C) Karyn Bosnak 2003 [...]". BTW: google might have a few more results with English and non-English webside (German Webside). German could even be attestable as for WT:CFI. -80.133.107.175 10:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you sometimes see an entry demoted to "rare, nonstandard" and get a mental image of someone slipping off the edge of a cliff and hanging on by the very edge of their fingernails? SCRAAAAAAAAAPE. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This entry is the obvious result of misprints and typos in sources. Send it over the cliff. -- · (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Can't we just add this as a misspelling and move on? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But it isn't a misspelling (let alone a common misspelling). It's a typo or misprint, which is different. First delete it and then move on. -- · (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It still makes sense as a word. They are "sides" that are on the web after all. Not only that, the fact that it now says "nonstandard" and "rare" should be enough to warn others that it is not a standard, common word. - PhpBBthe2nd (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you (or I) think it makes sense as a word. If it's almost always a typo, and a vanishingly rare one at that, then it probably doesn't belong in the dictionary. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But it does matter if it makes sense as a word. That is more or less the whole point of words. I also think it has been written down enough to be put on here. Combine both those facts and I think there is a good reason to keep it here. - PhpBBthe2nd (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When deciding whether a word should be included or not, it doesn't matter to this project (a descriptive dictionary) that a word "makes sense as a word"; the only criterion we are going by is whether that word is used or not. There are plenty of words that don't make sense but are used (so they belong here), and there are plenty of words that do make sense (or would make sense, if someone thought of them) but aren't used (so they don't belong here). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: is also a Danish term meaning "website" or "webpage", with the synonym . PseudoSkull (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Scanning through b.g.c I'm finding sufficient use to be convinced that it's a common enough misprint/L2 error that it's conceivable someone would want to know what it means. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna abstain or whatever but I want to point out again that we are wasting way too much time on pseudo-entries for things that "look a bit like a word". This isn't something we should spend time on lexicographically unless there is an absolutely massive groundswell. We are living in a time when technologies like Google can finally deal with this kind of thing by context and work out what a typo probably meant. Equinox ◑ 08:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not see this as anything other than a typo or misspelling/mishearing/misunderstanding. If it is kept on the basis that "it's a common enough misprint/L2 error that it's conceivable someone would want to know what it means", per above, can we at least demote it from a "proper" entry to just saying "misspelling". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have seen it fairly alot, so I figure that someone would want to look it up. -195.195.248.144 12:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling, per WT:CFI. The frequency ratio is 15 000 per, which is too high for a common misspelling; a calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, rare mispelling. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Ƿidsiþ 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, rare misspelling. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It probably can be deleted in English, but strangely enough this spelling is used in Danish and Norwegian, side means page in these cases. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same for German Webseite. I made the mistake, learning the calque first and didn't associated "Seite" with page, not even knowing that -site means -location (the latter aptly calqued as Webpräsenz). As ESL mistake it's obvious that the error rate would be lower than for "occurance". So I am not sure the "usual policy on misspellings" applies, which doesn't have a hard and fast threshold for notability set in stone anyway. And it's not a mere spelling mistake where the speaker is unsure how to spell site. Hence it's a misunderstandin that is perceived as spelling mistake.
 * The phono semantic matching works because "Seite" (and Dansk, Norsk "side") can translate to side and page as well. It would be a false-friend if webside was in the English lexicon, but actually it is an imaginary false-friend -- A mistranslation. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

keep: Not sure my vote counts anything. Attestation not withstanding, the Rational on misspelling inclusion is clear about the purpose. That is discovery for language learners. As per my argument above, due to DonnanZ, rarity has to be seen in perspective. Common mistake is a misnomer, because it's not a mistake anyone would make and commonly perceive as such, but it might be common to a subset of L2 speakers, exactly those for whom we keep the misspellings. Therefore, search statistics might be informative. Whereas, in times of auto-correct it might be difficult to get the mistake published. The necessity isn't quite there, but the etymology is interesting and somebody put work in the edits. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sense deleted; I have changed the entry to and have added the West Frisian sense. I leave it to others to add other language senses. bd2412 T 00:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)