Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:faccedilade. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:faccedilade, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:faccedilade in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:faccedilade you have here. The definition of the word Talk:faccedilade will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:faccedilade, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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.
An HTML artifact. Not attested from durably archived sources. Not very common at only 2700+ raw Web hits at Google, many of them noise hits from hit-hungry search sites. An excellent exemplar of its kind. DCDuringTALK16:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I just looked at that, and then at server, and found something reeeeeeeeeally funny: In the translation table for the definition meaning "unisex term for waiter or waitress", there is both a French male and female translation. XD L☺g☺maniacchat?21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The "General rule" of WT:CFI says a "term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." I ran across faccedilade at http://www.laparks.org/dos/historic/campo.htm and wanted to know what it meant. Readers who run across it elsewhere will probably want to know what it means. —Rod (A. Smith) 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I suppose: it is appropriately flagged as an erroneous form, and can be properly cited. No, delete: it isn't attestable per CFI, only from a Google Web search. Equinox◑19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Rodasmith above. Unlike many misspellings (common or otherwise), one can probably not easily determine faccedilade's meaning from just looking at it and its context. Misspellings like cemetary or acomodation are pretty easy to figure out. If we do keep this, though - how's it pronounced? fas-ADE like the original? fak-sed-il-ADE is what it looks like. :) L☺g☺maniacchat?19:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, it's not common, just one of my quirks. People give me strange looks when I say it that way. I've never seen that pronunciation in any dictionary. Sometimes I switch between fas-ADE and fas-AHD. Not that I usually say the word, just read it in books (that probably accounts for the weird pronunciation). :) L☺g☺maniacchat?21:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
At present it has NO cites from sources we accept as durably archived.
Are we now supposed to accept uncited and incitable rare technical artifacts as misspelllings? Not everything that we find curious that involves letters on a screen or on a page merits inclusion in a dictionary.
Rodasmith: The general principle of someone perhaps wanting to look it up is as vacuous as that of men being entitled to the pursuit of life liberty and property: It is not true without more than a few significant qualifications. Consider also the qualifications that attach to each word of our slogan "All words in all languages".
Are we to accept as "common" anything that generate 2700 raw google Web hits?
Logomaniac: Much of our content is easy to figure out if you are a native speaker with some higher education and you are the kind of person who likes to contribute to an on-line dictionary project.
But we're not writing a dictionary for "native speakers with some higher education". We're writing for ESL learners who haven't got a good grasp on the language and its quirks yet. We're writing for middle school students (like myself) who don't know what something means and aren't smart enough to quickly figure it out. We're writing for the people out there who just aren't that bright and their minds don't work as fast as some and don't make the connections as easily. We're writing for college students who want to know if the word they used in an essay is appropriate. That's the reason a dictionary is made, for goodness' sake! If we write it just for "the kind of person who likes to contribute to an on-line dictionary project", then there is no reason to go ahead with Wiktionary, and it will become a waste of lots of people's time, money, and hard work, and we'll get scoffed at. That should never be. We should be writing to educate people, not just utterly confuse and frustrate them. I do not think an ESL learner, a middle school student, a not-so-bright person, or a college student will be easily able to look at the word "faccedilade" in a book, scan the context, and go "Bingo! This is an HTML mix-up of "façade"!" I know I wouldn't. (So there. Sometimes I get disgusted with this project.) L☺g☺maniacchat?15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You had introduced the idea that common misspellings were easy to figure out. It seemed to be a criticism of including "easy" misspellings. Of course we keep common misspellings. I am among the last contributors to advocate a high-brow approach to our basic content. I believe that we don't realize enough how much we have to help people because they are at earlier stages in learning, or tired, or experiencing a temporary memory problem, or ....
I just think that HTML glitches that leak onto the screen or printed page are a lot like inkblots or manual-typewriter-era artifacts from adjoining keys striking the page together. It is not a misspelling; it is not an alternate spelling; it is not a word. It is not common. It is not attestable. It fails WT:CFI. It would be perfectly fine in an Appendix of Fascinating Typography or in WikiTypography. DCDuringTALK17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry if I came across wrong. Admittedly, I did get a little worked up about that, it is a topic very close to my heart. However, I was addressing your "Much of our content is easy to figure out if you are a native speaker with some higher education and you are the kind of person who likes to contribute to an on-line dictionary project", which totally rubbed me the wrong way, and I apologize for getting so ... excited I guess I could say. If this is not a term that one would come across somewhere, then fine we can delete it. I have no problems with that. Don't get me wrong, please. (That just confuses everyone.) But part of my frustration with dictionaries in general (and, before I came here, this one especially) was that I couldn't find what I was looking for. I don't want to confuse people who honestly want to know what it means. As to "common misspellings", I did not intend to criticize our having them. I think it's perfectly fine. I was just thinking that if we have those semi-easy-to-figure-out ones, we should have one like this which isn't just off by one letter. L☺g☺maniacchat?17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
As pointed out, "misspellings" need to be cited, so if we do keep this (which looks likely) it's very unlikely that I will pass an RFV, ergo it will get deleted a month later anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Only 2 of the citations as to its existence are valid. Because only common misspellings are retained we need some evidence that this is common in raw numbers or proportion. DCDuringTALK14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
AFAICT, none of them are from sites that we have been accepting as durably archived cites. They are merely websites. Of course a mere web artifact could disappear as soon as someone corrected the HTML. We don't yet have durably archived evidence of its persistent existence and we don't yet have evidence that it is common. DCDuringTALK16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yes. That lame "durably archived" requirement. Whatever. I understand that "durably archived" is a nice property for citations because the citations will remain available for future readers. I don't understand, though, why it would be a requirement for citations that prove the existence of a misspelling/mishtmling like this. Anyone can verify the existence of the misspelling in those cites during the course of this RFV. The misspelling/mishtmling clearly exists. —Rod (A. Smith) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
It seems the only ones that we routinely accept are the Google sites: Books, News, and Scholar, and Usenet, which one can access via Google Groups. These Google searches give use convenient access to print sources. Once something is committed to print that edition is fixed and cannot be changed. Any content in the broad universe of websites can be changed at the will of the owner. Even if Google hasn't scanned it, anything in print that some libraries somewhere have is probably considered durably archived. One can always make a case for additional classes of durably archived citations. There are places that claim to be archiving the web, but I don't think that anyone has addressed that. I wonder how one would connect such an archive with a particular search result. Accepting such web archives would eventually substantially change the mix of headwords. DCDuringTALK17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sure, the authors may some day correct the misspelling, but that possibility shouldn't influence this RFV. Anyone can check that the cites are valid right now, so they should count as satisfying the RFV. —Rod (A. Smith) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a WT:BP matter to me. The application of any set of rules ends up in technicalities like this. We also haven't established that it is "common". If this is called a misspelling, I view that as a technicality. DCDuringTALK19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have begun Appendix:HTML artifacts to collect these things. Although software improvements may mean they will always be uncommon, they are a curiosity some may find interesting. It is an open question whether they merit an entry or even an "only-in" (or hard redirect) steering users to the Appendix. DCDuringTALK15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
As a student and practitioner of many forms of error, I wonder whether mony less common misspellings and misconstructions don't deserve enshrinement in one or more Appendixes. There are interesting patterns to such things, as w:Arnold Zwicky has entertainingly and usefully laid out in a downloadable (free, AFAICT) work Mistakes. DCDuringTALK18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that 53-page 1979 booklet can be found and downloaded here. Most of the more common misspellings are really predictable and decipherable as such, but artefacts like *faccedilade seem to come out of nowhere (that’s why they’re worth having, despite being much rarer, even when many more common misspellings aren’t). I’ll give Mistakes a read at some point; thanks for bringing it to my attention. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
