Talk:cetera paribus

RFV
L2 header Latin, but categorized as English phrase. I would think it an uncommon misspelling/misconstruction of ceteris paribus in English and probably just an error in Classical Latin. I have no idea about its possible standing in Vulgar Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a simple mistake by an English speaker mixing up "et cetera" with "ceteris paribus". I suggest moving this to RFD. —Angr 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Timed out DCDuring TALK 20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

cetera paribus
Sure, we could just delete this as RFV-failed because no-one bothered to cite it, but the RFV discussion suggested it should be deleted for even more reasons. However, that discussion also suggested it was cite-able, and some may want to keep it to help readers who are confused by it (after seeing it used by confused writers). So, discuss: should we keep it, as an English and/or Latin phrase? - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (My own opinion is: delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Delete already. The entire first page of hits for "cetera paribus" at b.g.c. is scannos for ceteris paribus. (In other words, you get hits, but if you actually click on them and view the page where the phrase occurs, you see that what was actually printed in the book was ceteris paribus.) I'm seeing no evidence it ever occurs as a mistake in permanently archived writing, let alone a common one. —Angr 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, or provide evidence to support the contrary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't seem common enough either absolutely or relative to ceteris paribus to call it a "common misspelling". DCDuring TALK 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete · 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 03:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)