Talk:increidbly

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

increidbly

This is what I call a rare misspelling, so it should be deleted. Some searches: increidbly, incredibly at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., google:"increidbly", google:"incredibly", google books:"increidbly", google books:"incredibly". The frequency ratio in Google Ngram Viewer cannot be determined since the misspelling is not found; the frequency ratio in Google books is 3,520,000 : 36 = over 90,000. Compare conceive, (concieve*1000) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would use this form in speech or non-typed writing. I don't believe we should have typos (where the fingers misstrike the keys) as common misspellings: it is something for the search engine "did you mean...?" feature to sort out. Has this been discussed before? Romanophile, what value do you perceive in creating such entries (neutral honest question)? Equinox ◑ 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see much value in complicating the inclusion criteria with the distinction between typo misspellings and non-typo mispellings, where typos cannot not occur in non-typed writing. I see value in keeping attested frequently occurring typos: when the user enters a typo into the search box of the dictionary, it is more convenient for them to be soft-redirected to typoless page than to see a blank page. I do not fear overflood of common typos and misspellings; Category:English misspellings now has less than 2000 entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, no question about that. I can make that sort of error every day, and it's up to me to correct them. Donnanz (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. We have traditionally excluded typos (which can be identified as such by the fact that they are found alongside the usual spellings in many or most of the works in which they are found). - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Does not match my recollection. From what I recall, there is no tradition of excluding high-frequency typos. And the method of recognition, if suggestes to distinguish typos from non-typos, does not work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I differentiate typos from misspellings as errors made by people who likely know the correct spelling but don't hit the right keys, or hit the keys in the wrong order. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would type this believing it to be the correct spelling of the word. bd2412 T 03:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, per BD2412 Lmaltier (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We deleted derver (in English) because it's a typo for, rather than a misspelling of server. Why is this still here? Just delete it. 95.144.169.113 18:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Derver (archived version). 95.144.169.113 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the RFD discussion is on Talk:derver. In that discussion, certain Mglovesfun (which would be you per your recent disclosure) asks whether we would accept "viwe" as a common misspelling of "view". To which my answer is, no, we don't accept that since the frequency ratio is unequivocally unfavorable per (viwe*500000),view at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., and therefore "viwe" is not common by any stretch. In that same discussion, DCDuring opines that we have avoided adding misspellings resulting as typos, and adds "except in atypical cases that otherwise seem to meet good old CFI", failing to note that we are talking attested typos and that there never was anything in CFI to exclude all attested misspellings (typos or not) in the first place; so much for good old CFI. As for "derver", that is not found in Google Ngram Viewer at all. On another note, the RFD discussion had three participants, and lasted mere 9 days. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 13:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)