Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

Too rare for a misspelling entry; cf. google books:"digitigrade" (1,021) with google books:"digitgrade" (39). Delete.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What's our cutoff? 3.7% seems like plenty for a misspelling, especially in print works that have (mostly) undergone some degree of editing. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to create it, but I'm inclined to think that anything over 1-2% is keepable. Further, turning to the web -- which is what most previus misspelling discussions have been based on -- I get 7530 for google:+digitgrade vs. 44100 for google:+digitigrade. At 14.6%, that's a higher error rate than accomodation (which is 10.9% by my Google). I'm OK with it if we want to adopt a 5% b.g.c. cutoff or similar, but unless we do adopt a strict numeric cutoff, this looks keepish to me. -- Visviva 00:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I rechecked: the number of hits for *digitgrade became thirty-two by clicking on the last screenful of hits; of those, these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] were invisible and this one is a scanno of the correct digitigrade (see the centre of its “(d)” paragraph). So, only twenty book hits for *digitgrade are confirmed, or <1.96% of the number of hits for digitigrade (before similar adjustments are made to the raw b.g.c. hits for it). Google Fight gives digitigrade (11,800) vs. digitgrade (583), making digitgrade <4.95% as common as digitigrade. Bear in mind as well the fact that we’ve had an entry for digitgrade since 15:40, 10 May 2006, so that’ll inflate the number of hits Google yields for digitgrade. Compare google:+plantgrade (217) with google:+plantigrade (87,100): making plantgrade <0.25% as common as plantigrade. This, I think, is a very good reason not to listen to Google Web Search hits when considering such things in future. I conclude again that this is too rare to be kept as a common misspelling.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. But if we apply the same correction to the b.g.c. hits for '+digitigrade', the total number of hits becomes 336: [12]. So the actual percentage would seem to be around 8.7% [32/(336+32)], which is again quite high, particularly given that we are dealing (primarily) with edited works. I hadn't heard of any "common misspelling" criterion that would place the cutoff above 5%. -- Visviva 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. I really didn’t expect 660 hits to be fake. Yeah, I suppose that’s common enough to be retained. However, I think the point about the especial unreliability of Google Web Search still stands.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Google Web counts are fiendishly unreliable (and often impossible to double-check), yes. Perhaps we could use a cross-section of the smaller Googles instead? -- Visviva 02:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Book Search seems OK with some corrections; Groups Search has inspired suspicion; I haven’t tested the others enough to comment.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was Keep, deletion template removed --Kakurady 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)