Talk:doïng

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

doïng

-- Prince Kassad 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick search at Google books suggests that there are scannos and uses in FL books about English. It would seem hard to sustain the notion that English pedants use this spelling. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The creation of this word listed [1] in the edit comments. There are three pages of Usenet hits using this. Certainly not pedants, though.--Prosfilaes 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Snobs, perhaps? I found this title in BGC: "Doïng business with Ukraïne". Spelling "doïng" is probably used here as eye-catcher as "Ukraïne" is one way to transliterate Україна into English. Other uses were in French texts where it appeared to be used as some type of phonetic spelling. Unless valid permanently archived cites are provided, delete. --Hekaheka 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The best shot of the cover didn't look like it had a diaeresis. I think it's a scanno. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Even more so, delete. --Hekaheka 07:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What is invalid about at least eighteen of these?: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] — Unless the invalidity of at least that many can be shown, this term is clearly attested. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The first is not durably archived IMHO. (The rest are, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So we have nineteen CFI-satisfying citations, yes? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it may pass the letter of the CFI, but to be honest it's pretty feeble. All of these are from newsgroups (and some seem to be from non-native speakers?). From what I can tell this has never appeared in a single printed book, even old ones. It's more like non-common misspelling, isn't it? Ƿidsiþ 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no citations in the entry. What are needed are either citations that support the definition given or a different definition consistent with the citations in the entry. Our preferred practice AFAICT is to allocate citations to particular definition lines. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the writers using this form in the examples above appear to be Dutch. There's also a Dutch family name "Doïng". Is this a typical Dutch spelling error? Anyway, the current definition appears to be wrong. How can this be a pedantic spelling, if no written sources mention it? --Hekaheka 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care what we call it. I just wanted to oppose the bizarre notion that this spelling is unattestable. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are still no citations in the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do note Talk:vacuüm, which was a similar case. -- Prince Kassad 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited definitions of -ïng and doïng according to the model of vacuüm. --Hekaheka 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as nonstandard (in addition to rare and Netherlands) and passed. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–October 2012

See Talk:reäction#RFV.