Talk:Lexicographic error

[Untitled]
Should the title of the article have been Reference-book error instead, with broader scope and perhaps separate sections for dictionaries and for encyclopedias? If i accurately recall the Larousse Gastronomique case, that would belong in the encyc section. --Jerzy(t) 22:28, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I removed language
 * The entry was intended to be "D or d" as abbreviations for "density." Instead, when the type was set, it was misread as "dord" and defined as "density."

that duplicates the linked article's info; IMO the entries that lack content for their own articles should have their small substance here, but unless there are details that directly support some further content (such as what procedures M-W changed in response to the dord incident), there's no point beyond what identifies the event (date, publisher, and work seem enough), and describes its general type. (The language is also fuzzy and inaccurate.) --Jerzy(t) 04:18, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

hink
I don't think hink is "clearly an error for think", as that would give the definition "If you think, you think hopefully and unrealistically about something." This doesn't seem to make sense to me. I suggest we remove the statement "which is clearly an error for think" (which is a subjective statement in any case). Sverre 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Intentional errors
I know some dictionaries introduce intentional errors as a copyright protection scheme. New Scientist has had some articles on this the last year. I suggest adding a paragraph on this practice. Sverre 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC

I have heard that story but is it true? It would be good to see some examples.S. Valkemirer (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Speak of ghost meanings too
In the article on "Ghost words" I suggested that ghost meanings be mentioned too. It's hard to tell whether that subject belongs there or here. Please see my remarks at that article and decide.S. Valkemirer (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)