Talk:Diprodontia

RFD discussion: January–April 2015
Correct spelling is already at Diprotodontia. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, this is citable: 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure if this should be classified as a misspelling or a haplologised alternative form. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad I didn't speedy it. Are haplologize/haplologise citable. Even if they aren't, it would be a fine addition to Glossary. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At Google Scholar it's 1400:60 (raw count, apparently actually more like 1000:60) favoring Diprotodontia, which is in line with it not appearing on the databases that I've looked at. The shorter spelling is certainly less accepted, not following standard name-construction practice from the stem (όντ-) of Ancient Greek that the genus Diprotodon, instead reconstructing the word from  instead of  is derived from . See aso . DCDuring TALK  19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar would provide enough attestation to support haplologize, but not haplologise AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've managed to cite both spellings. Most of the citations of haplologise are of the past tense form, but their grammatical environments make clear that they are verb forms rather than adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But are the haplologized forms haplogize/haplogise attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly not, but that's what we have for. DCDuring TALK  21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a common mispelling. : 47 hits (after clicking next); : 4,810 hits. Frequency ratio is approximately 100. Compare or . --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above discussion. I've relabelled it a nonstandard form of Diprotodontia; if someone would rather relabel it a misspelling, go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)