CountMax errors

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:16 pm

We'd never allow PIVOTMANS on the show.

The -MAN in PIVOTMAN (unlike the -MAN in TALISMAN) is clearly pertaining to man the living being, so -MEN is obviously the correct plural, regardless of its omission from the dictionary. It might go again the rules in a way,given that its not actually printed in the dictionary, but common sense has to prevail. PIVOTMANS would just be silly.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:28 pm

D Eadie wrote:common sense has to prevail.

This seems like a risky precedent. What if my common sense doesn't agree with yours? What about all the other dictionary mistakes, which are varying shades of subtle? Susie has already changed her "common sense" on words like OPALINES and SEDATIONS, it seems a bit mean to ask her to exercise even more personal judgment.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:37 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:What about all the other dictionary mistakes, which are varying shades of subtle?

http://www.apterous.org/lexplorer.php?word=subtles

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:20 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
D Eadie wrote:common sense has to prevail.
This seems like a risky precedent. What if my common sense doesn't agree with yours? What about all the other dictionary mistakes, which are varying shades of subtle? Susie has already changed her "common sense" on words like OPALINES and SEDATIONS, it seems a bit mean to ask her to exercise even more personal judgment.

I know what you're saying Charlie, but i think in this case your common sense does agree with mine. i don't think its risky to disallow a word that is blatantly incorrect. PIVOTMANS would be a nonsense and it would be laughable to give someone 18 pts for it.
If something is open to interpretation or there is an element of doubt, then we can perhaps get away with allowing, but not in this case. Rules are there to be broken. If ARGUE wasn't listed we wouldnt disallow it because the rules say so. There is a duty to be sensible with things. Allowing PIVOTMANS would bring the show into disrepute and you'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the country who thought it correct. Have looked at other makes of dictionary and it doesn't exist, so it won't exist

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:51 pm

D Eadie wrote: I know what you're saying Charlie, but i think in this case your common sense does agree with mine. i don't think its risky to disallow a word that is blatantly incorrect. PIVOTMANS would be a nonsense and it would be laughable to give someone 18 pts for it.
If something is open to interpretation or there is an element of doubt, then we can perhaps get away with allowing, but not in this case. Rules are there to be broken. If ARGUE wasn't listed we wouldnt disallow it because the rules say so. There is a duty to be sensible with things. Allowing PIVOTMANS would bring the show into disrepute and you'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the country who thought it correct. Have looked at other makes of dictionary and it doesn't exist, so it won't exist

I understand what you're saying about the right to exercise discretion, but I'm slightly nervous about the idea that even armed with the dictionary and the rules sent to every contestant, I still can't be sure which words will be allowed. Are you going to allow REMOVALS which should clearly be in but isn't? What about INDOORSES, SIMONISE, SANDMEN, FAUXER and all the other problematic words? At least if you go with the dictionary then everyone knows where they stand. I wouldn't want to be Susie faced with deciding the 26-point swing of one contestant offering DOLOMITE and the other DOLOMITES in a series final...

Also, here's a list of all the words which (currently) don't take a MEN plural. ATAMAN, ATMAN, BOGMAN, CAIMAN, CAYMAN, DESMAN, FARMAN, FIRMAN, GERMAN, HANUMAN, HIELAMAN, HUMAN, INHUMAN, LEMAN, OTTOMAN, OUTMAN, PREHUMAN, REMAN, ROMAN, SAMAN, SANDMAN, SHAMAN, SOMAN, SUBHUMAN, TALISMAN, UNDERMAN, UNHUMAN, UNMAN.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:55 pm

I wasnt looking to obtain asbolute clarity on every single word, that would be hard to arrive at. I suppose you have it tougher than us, in that you want a definitive word list for Apterous, whereas we don't need to nail our colours to any particular mast unless forced to do so. That said, it's obvious that pivotmans is bollock and anyone offering it would be silly.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:06 am

D Eadie wrote: That said, it's obvious that pivotmans is bollock and anyone offering it would be silly.

Maybe agreed but the plural of SANDMAN is SANDMANS or should that also be SANDMEN as it's a man?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:17 am

D Eadie wrote:I wasnt looking to obtain asbolute clarity on every single word, that would be hard to arrive at. I suppose you have it tougher than us, in that you want a definitive word list for Apterous, whereas we don't need to nail our colours to any particular mast unless forced to do so. That said, it's obvious that pivotmans is bollock and anyone offering it would be silly.

Well sure, I'm not arguing about PIVOTMANS in particular, I'm just saying that if you don't follow the dictionary then you at least need some other set of standards that you can follow so that contestants know what to expect. Otherwise there's every chance that you're going to allow something like OPALINES in one show and not in another, and I think we agree that you want to avoid that.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:54 am

I think SANDMAN is non-pluralisable either way, as it says THE SANDMAN, and there is only one isn't there? Quite funny how we're debating whether or not there is more than one of something that doesn't exist anyway !!

By and large Charlie, we do and will follow the dictionary, but not to the extreme whereby we accept something that is clearly wrong. The biggest problem we've had with some of the words is remembering what we did with them last time round. GAMBIERS is easy enough, but some of the other words are not that memorable and it can be 6 months before you are faced with the dilemma again. I used to use a highlighter pen in a copy of the dictionary and mark the entry with red to show it had been previously disallowed, but now it's a computer programme and that can't be done. We disallowed TONNAGES the other day, although Susie and I were not entirely in agreement. I was looking to allow it, but she preferred not to, so we went with that.

For what its worth, OPALINES should be accepted. SIMONISE wouldn't, because SIMONIZE is formed from SIMONIZ, the car polish that you can buy in the shops, which because it is a product, is clearly only spelt one way so the -IZE -ISE problem takes care of itself methinks. Maybe.

There is a lack of clarity with some entries, ie INDOORS being given as a noun, but again common sense tells you not to bother offering it. DOLOMITES wouldn't be allowed, its a mass noun and the 'sedimentary rock' entry beneath the main description lends itself to rock in the collective sense rather than individual rocks that you could throw around.

Maybe we'll change dictionaries on the QT, thus rendering all the apterous games invalid. It would be terribly spiteful of course, but also quite amusing.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:59 am

D Eadie wrote:I think SANDMAN is non-pluralisable either way, as it says THE SANDMAN, and there is only one isn't there? Quite funny how we're debating whether or not there is more than one of something that doesn't exist anyway !!

You've allowed plurals of other words like that (e.g. ONUS).

D Eadie wrote:For what its worth, OPALINES should be accepted. SIMONISE wouldn't, because SIMONIZE is formed from SIMONIZ, the car polish that you can buy in the shops, which because it is a product, is clearly only spelt one way so the -IZE -ISE problem takes care of itself methinks. Maybe.

That's the opposite of what Susie said.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:54 am

Hang on, ONUS (something that is one's duty or responsibility), is clearly pluralisable.
SANDMAN is a fictitious character of which there is only one, not quite the same.

If its the opposite of what Susie said then it doesn't surprise me. Everyone has different interpretations and many things are borderline. Maybe the solution IS to ditch the ODE after all. It really shouldn't be hard to look a word up and see if it is acceptable, but the ODE isn't user-friendly at all when it comes to Countdown.

With the IZE / ISE words, both options are listed when both options can be used, but this isn't the case with SIMONIZE, so i still think i am right. Having said that, i haven't analysed the dictionary looking for contradictions, so i could be wrong also. Do you know of any other instances where the IZE/ ISE options are not given?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:01 am

D Eadie wrote:Hang on, ONUS (something that is one's duty or responsibility), is clearly pluralisable.
SANDMAN is a fictitious character of which there is only one, not quite the same.

If its the opposite of what Susie said then it doesn't surprise me. Everyone has different interpretations and many things are borderline. Maybe the solution IS to ditch the ODE after all. It really shouldn't be hard to look a word up and see if it is acceptable, but the ODE isn't user-friendly at all when it comes to Countdown.

With the IZE / ISE words, both options are listed when both options can be used, but this isn't the case with SIMONIZE, so i still think i am right. Having said that, i haven't analysed the dictionary looking for contradictions, so i could be wrong also. Do you know of any other instances where the IZE/ ISE options are not given?

ICONIZE I think. But I agree with you for the most part Damo - you've got to use common sense as and when, whereas Charlie (and myself previously) are trying to make definitive lists. I often thought what would happen if both players (as might happen in a CoC or even a series final now, where both players are very much aware of the exact dictionary entries) offered the same debatable mass noun, but one singular and one plural, both obviously fully aware of the issues. If it were me, I'd be happy to reshoot with both players offering the same (whichever is deemed correct), but I dunno if everyone would feel the same.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:09 am

D Eadie wrote:I wasnt looking to obtain asbolute clarity on every single word

Another one for the new words thread.

asbolute n A socially unacceptable plucked instrument.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:22 am

Jon Corby wrote: I often thought what would happen if both players (as might happen in a CoC or even a series final now, where both players are very much aware of the exact dictionary entries) offered the same debatable mass noun, but one singular and one plural, both obviously fully aware of the issues. If it were me, I'd be happy to reshoot with both players offering the same (whichever is deemed correct), but I dunno if everyone would feel the same.

Simple, we'd disallow the word of whoever we disliked the most

asbolute n A socially unacceptable plucked instrument.

Excellent

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:23 pm

Just watched the October 27th game and JimDic lists REMITTOR(S) as valid. Can't find it in any version of the ODE, though, unless it's listed under IMBONGI or something... Another change for the next version, I guess, as well as a mini-mod to the Wiki and recap.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:56 pm

D Eadie wrote:Rules are there to be broken. If ARGUE wasn't listed we wouldnt disallow it because the rules say so. There is a duty to be sensible with things

ROADSIDE?

D Eadie wrote:The biggest problem we've had with some of the words is remembering what we did with them last time round. GAMBIERS is easy enough, but some of the other words are not that memorable and it can be 6 months before you are faced with the dilemma again. I used to use a highlighter pen in a copy of the dictionary and mark the entry with red to show it had been previously disallowed, but now it's a computer programme and that can't be done.

I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of dozen controversial words that have actually come up on the show, and that includes ones from Dictionary Corner not offered by contestants. A simple list included in the contestants' briefing notes, with a few words explaining why OPALINES are OK and GAMBIERS aren't, would help them, and having a list of precedents would help DC as well. Incidentally, it's easy to poke fun and find inconsistencies, but there isn't a surefire solution.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:21 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Also, here's a list of all the words which (currently) don't take a MEN plural. ATAMAN, ATMAN, BOGMAN, CAIMAN, CAYMAN, DESMAN, FARMAN, FIRMAN, GERMAN, HANUMAN, HIELAMAN, HUMAN, INHUMAN, LEMAN, OTTOMAN, OUTMAN, PREHUMAN, REMAN, ROMAN, SAMAN, SANDMAN, SHAMAN, SOMAN, SUBHUMAN, TALISMAN, UNDERMAN, UNHUMAN, UNMAN.

Are they even all nouns? Surely non-nouns aren't needed in such a list.

Edit - I suppose this might be for learning purposes rather than the discussion.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:26 pm

ECTOGENE is a derivative of ECTOGENESIS, listed as a noun, so ECTOGENE and ECTOGENES should be added. < IGNORE

EDAMAME (mass noun) is listed as an appetizer or starter in Japanses cuisine, so EDAMAMES should be added. (I think)

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:08 pm

JackHurst wrote:ECTOGENE is a derivative of ECTOGENESIS, listed as a noun, so ECTOGENE and ECTOGENES should be added.

Dunno which dictionary you have mate but there is no ECTOGENE under ECTOGENESIS in the ODE2r, sorry.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:44 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
JackHurst wrote:ECTOGENE is a derivative of ECTOGENESIS, listed as a noun, so ECTOGENE and ECTOGENES should be added.
Dunno which dictionary you have mate but there is no ECTOGENE under ECTOGENESIS in the ODE2r, sorry.

K, I was reading the first edition. I best make people take note of that fact next time i suggest a correction.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:50 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
JackHurst wrote:ECTOGENE is a derivative of ECTOGENESIS, listed as a noun, so ECTOGENE and ECTOGENES should be added.
Dunno which dictionary you have mate but there is no ECTOGENE under ECTOGENESIS in the ODE2r, sorry.

Are you sure? I just looked in a dictionary at my school that im pretty sure is the right one, and its definitely listed.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:21 pm

JackHurst wrote: Are you sure? I just looked in a dictionary at my school that im pretty sure is the right one, and its definitely listed.

Yes I'm sure. It simply isn't there. You must have the wrong dictionary. You need Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition, Revised.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:24 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
JackHurst wrote: Are you sure? I just looked in a dictionary at my school that im pretty sure is the right one, and its definitely listed.
Yes I'm sure. It simply isn't there. You must have the wrong dictionary. You need Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition, Revised.

Are you sure?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:26 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Are you sure?

Haha. I'm refraining from stating percentages of certainty.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:29 pm

Kirks definitely right. I looked on the back of the dictionary at school, and it said second edition, so i assuemd it to be the right one, but when i got home and looked at mine it also said second edition, and i know that mines not the most up to date one. Sorry about that.

How often do the dictionaries get updated?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:46 pm

CHRYSALES isn't in - needs to be deleted. The plural of CHRYSALIS is CHRYSALISES.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:10 pm

LURVES, LURVING and LURVED need to be added as LURVE is given as a verb, not just a noun.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:51 am

Lexplorer has now been updated. I've resisted +OKRAS, +SANDMANS, +PIVOTMANS, +TAUPES and -PIVOTMEN, pending further discussion.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:09 pm

REIVINGS to be added as, under REIVE, it says [usu. as noun REIVING].

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:10 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:REIVINGS to be added as, under REIVE, it says [usu. as noun REIVING].

Who cares, play REVISING.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:17 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Who cares, play REVISING.

Haha you're sounding like Martin Gardner now.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:35 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:REIVINGS to be added as, under REIVE, it says [usu. as noun REIVING].
Who cares, play REVISING.

Even better, remove all anagrams, they only spoil the language.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:40 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:REIVINGS to be added as, under REIVE, it says [usu. as noun REIVING].
Who cares, play REVISING.
Even better, remove all anagrams, they only spoil the language.

Shit.

(this)

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:18 pm

It seems the rather grim COLORISER should be valid.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:46 pm

Add HELOTAGES as HELOTAGE is just a noun and should be in.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:29 pm

What's GRRLS

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:13 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:What's GRRLS

A variant spelling of GRRRLS.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:39 am

SMETANAS perhaps? Questionable but possible.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:03 pm

Just browsing through the K section in my old edition of the OED, and thought I'd check up a few words I came across (no innuendos here please, I'm not Kirk). I found three that I think should be added, but as my dictionary is old, it would be worthwhile if someone else could check their up to date version

KARTINGS (since KARTING is listed as a noun) KEFER & KEFEST (KEF is in as an adjective).

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:05 pm

JackHurst wrote:Just browsing through the K section in my old edition of the OED, and thought I'd check up a few words I came across (no innuendos here please, I'm not Kirk). I found three that I think should be added, but as my dictionary is old, it would be worthwhile if someone else could check their up to date version

KARTINGS (since KARTING is listed as a noun) KEFER & KEFEST (KEF is in as an adjective).

A karting? One is not convinced.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:44 pm

JackHurst wrote:Just browsing through the K section in my old edition of the OED, and thought I'd check up a few words I came across (no innuendos here please, I'm not Kirk). I found three that I think should be added, but as my dictionary is old, it would be worthwhile if someone else could check their up to date version

KARTINGS (since KARTING is listed as a noun) KEFER & KEFEST (KEF is in as an adjective).

KEF is in as a noun too so KEFS should be listed. KARTINGS is also fine, so an error there.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:17 am

Wouldn't it be KEFFER and KEFFEST? What the hell does kef mean?

KARTINGS is stupid as well. This is the "common sense" Damian talks about. (Unless karting means something other than driving a kart.)

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:11 am

Jon Corby wrote: KARTINGS is stupid as well. This is the "common sense" Damian talks about. (Unless karting means something other than driving a kart.)

No, it does just mean driving karts about. I also think its a ridiculous word, but thought I'd post it and let other ppl bicker over it.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:56 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Wouldn't it be KEFFER and KEFFEST? What the hell does kef mean?

It says in the introduction that words which double the final consonant have the inflections specified, so unless it says otherwise then we are to assume KEFER and KEFEST.

Jon Corby wrote:KARTINGS is stupid as well. This is the "common sense" Damian talks about. (Unless karting means something other than driving a kart.)

It's the same as DOTAGES which has been allowed many times.

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:10 pm

MOOTER is not allowed on Apterous, although it was allowed on the show in this game
http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4914

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:14 pm

Oliver Garner wrote:MOOTER is not allowed on Apterous, although it was allowed on the show in this game
http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4914

MOOTER and MOOTEST have now been added to aptodic.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:05 pm

KATHODE is listed as an archaic spelling of CATHODE, so I think KATHODE and KATHODES should be added. (It might not be in the new edition tho, so it would be nice if someone could check again)

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:08 pm

JackHurst wrote:KATHODE is listed as an archaic spelling of CATHODE, so I think KATHODE and KATHODES should be added. (It might not be in the new edition tho, so it would be nice if someone could check again)

Yep, good spot. For whatever reason it isn't noted under CATHODE. KATHODAL and KATHODIC have also been added on the same basis.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:16 am

On apterous you can have POTHEENS but not POTEENS which is inconsistent as POTHEEN is listed as an alternative spelling of POTHEEN. My point is that you should either be allowed to pluralise both of them or neither of them. Which this should be, I am not too sure of because its listed as some sort of alcohol, and I'm not sure whether asking for POTEENS is like asking for BEERS of like asking for MOONSHINES.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:45 pm

Delete IMPERILED. It's an American spelling.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:38 pm

Also DEMENTI/DEMENTIS needs to be added.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:27 am

HALLOUMIS is probably OK by the food portions in a restaurant rule.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:39 am

Paul Howe wrote:HALLOUMIS is probably OK by the food portions in a restaurant rule.

Wouldn't that be a similar argument to OKRAS? (Invalid,and I brought it up a while ago.)

I love how Countdown leads to debates about what constitutes something you'd order in a restaurant

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:14 am

Add ALCHERAS.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:04 pm

SUSHIS maybe?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:07 am

AERIES in but I don't think it should.

AERIE: noun. American spelling of EYRIE.

That says disallowed.

Under EYRIE, it says (N. Amer. also AERIE). I guess this means it should be disallowed?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:11 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:AERIES in but I don't think it should.

AERIE: noun. American spelling of EYRIE.

That says disallowed.

Under EYRIE, it says (N. Amer. also AERIE). I guess this means it should be disallowed?

Do we disallow North American spellings? Or just US spellings?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:17 am

Charlie Reams wrote: Do we disallow North American spellings? Or just US spellings?

But if you said AERIES on the show, Susie would look under AERIE and it says, explicitly, American spelling of EYRIE. My bet is that it would be disallowed.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:24 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: Do we disallow North American spellings? Or just US spellings?
But if you said AERIES on the show, Susie would look under AERIE and it says, explicitly, American spelling of EYRIE. My bet is that it would be disallowed.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just asking for general reference.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:40 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:AERIES in but I don't think it should.

AERIE: noun. American spelling of EYRIE.

That says disallowed.

Under EYRIE, it says (N. Amer. also AERIE). I guess this means it should be disallowed?
Do we disallow North American spellings? Or just US spellings?

I thought it was just US spellings. I've posted on this before (on here and Gevincountdown I think). Maybe I'll have a look.