Does mispellings deserve an entry? Kipmaster 13:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they does, especially those that have been used by people since the days of Middle English. Etymology: From Middle English superceden, from Middle French superceder. For some people, such a spelling may be the one they were taught and have used all their life, and it comes as a total surprise to find that it's apparently been incorrect all that time. An article such as this provides more information than a brusque redirect. - 22.214.171.124 14:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure yes. In several places we talk about not just having simple redirects for misspellings, which implies that we do have entries for misspellings.--Richardb 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As to whether this deserves an entry: I found this page very helpful as I was sure I had seen this spelling often and my first instinct was to spell it as such. Dictionary.com listed it but did not identify it as a misspelling.
Sverre 06:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks; now fixed. --Connel MacKenzie 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It ought to say whether it's English or American - or Australian, Canadian, etc.
- Yes, valid as a mis-spelling (or as a questionable variant in some regions and cultures). Dbfirs 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The OED lists it as 'supercede (now nonstandard)', which implies that it's a more historical spelling than a misspelling
- The OED also lists the following "historical spellings": supersead, superseade, superseed, supersed, supersade, superseid and swparseid. I think all of these would also be regarded as mis-spellings in modern English. Dbfirs 12:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)