Talk:Acanthasitta

Acanthasitta
I think this is a not-common misspelling of Acanthisitta. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly disconcerting in the etymology of Acanthisittidae. — Pingkudimmi 13:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it may be a misspelling but it clearly meets the rules of Attestation, aren't you glad it wasn't speedied. Speednat (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; yields no hits at all. This could go to RFV, but I actually think it could as well have been speedied, so let us vote on deletion here and be done with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep; With very little time invested I found three distinct hits.
 * http://newzealandecology.org/nzje/free_issues/NZJEcol34_1_28.pdf
 * http://www.boprc.govt.nz/media/33700/Wildland-091118-TaurangaEcolDistPhase1.pdf
 * http://www.sahs.uk.net/BoTNHAS%20Trans%20Vol%20V,%20Part%20II.pdf
 * The citations clearly fail to meet the "durably archived" test. In any event it is a not very common misspelling. A misspelling that is this close to the correct spelling will cause the correct spelling to be suggested to the user who types the wrong spelling in the search box. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are four durably archived quotes coming up in a gscholar search (you need to download the large full pdfs to see some of them), but as these are all referring to Acanthasitta chloris it is a slam dunk they are all a misspelling of Acanthisitta chloris. Actually, the files were downloading while I was typing this and one of the four I can now see is only a google scanno. And another one uses the correct spelling elsewhere in the document.  Spinning Spark  00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Last call for comments before I close this as no consensus. bd2412 T 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard of evidence presented in defense of this spelling is shamefully low. Google Scholar's count of 4 for this spelling compares to 481 for the Acanthisitta. Not only is the absolute number of hits of the erroneous spelling low, but the relative number would seem to be below 1%. Such a low threshold would vastly increase the number of misspellings that we keep. Also I cannot find instances of the erroneous spelling at Google Books. Spinningspark also acknowledge that only two of the hits he advanced would count for RfV. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete because of that. IMO, a "common" misspelling should be something like miniscule. We already have a spell-check facility. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, nowhere near a common misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–June 2014
This is now at RFD, but maybe it is not even attested. Any attesting quotations? Consider placing those found at Citations:Acanthasitta, since that page is kep even when the entry fails RFV. Search:. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RFV failed: no quotations anywhere, even not in Citations:Acanthasitta. (Already deleted via RFD.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)