Talk:amgydala

RFD discussion: July–October 2022
A test case for the new typo rule at WT:CFI. This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Suspect this one is a typo, but plausibly a misconstruction in a dialect somewhere (though I'm sceptical for a word this technical). I'll wait a bit, and if nothing turns up will vote delete. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've always felt that we should only include misspellings that could plausibly exist as alternate spellings. Unless someone can find evidence of people pronouncing as, this strikes me as nothing more than a meaningless typo. Binarystep (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, this doesn't even include any evidence that it is common. - TheDaveRoss  16:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for nominator’s reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Much more likely to be corrected by Google search than by looking it up in Wt. Facts707 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * shows frequency ratio of about 1000, so this could have been previously kept as a common misspelling. With the new policy, one has to figure out whether this is a typo. What this new policy is good for evades my understanding. On the other hand, no big loss for the dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is good for excluding typos, which is what your "evidence" relies on. If you actually look at the books underlying the results you present you can see that the word is used both ways in the same books, and used once or twice in those books while the actual spelling is used dozens or hundreds of times. Those are typos. I think it is of extremely dubious utility to include misspellings (when people intentionally but incorrectly spell a word a particular way), but there is absolutely no reason to add mistakes. - TheDaveRoss  14:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has ever clearly explained why including common typos as misspellings or even specifically as typos is worse than including common non-typo misspellings, and no one suggested what portion of misspellings gets deleted by the new rule. To me, this is still increase in rule complexity and assessment complexity with no discernible value. SemperBlotto is going to be creating entries for common typos he finds in corpora and you will delete them one at a time via RFD, with rather little effect, as far as I can tell. Once a common typo is entered as a common misspelling, one has it covered in corpus searches, added value for those searching for new terms to add. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hitting the two nearby keys g and y in the wrong order when typing, an accidental typo, is a much more likely origin for this than intentional misspelling. Misspellings usually represent someone's guess at how the word would be spelled, knowing it only from speech, like abhorrant (guessing the wrong -ant vs -ent ending) or like mixing up their and there; since no-one pronounces either of those words /hə.tɛɹ/, is doubtless a typo and not a misspelling; likewise, amgydala would be pronounced differently, so misspelling seems implausible. (Whether a work uses a spelling consistently, suggesting a misspelling, or only occasionally, suggesting an occasional accidental typo, is also informative, as Dave says.) - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly just a typo. MedK1 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - TheDaveRoss  13:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)