Talk:devalueing

devalueing
Extremely uncommon misspelling of devaluing. I tried Google Books Ngram which says it can't even find devalueing. I would've tagged it with but I thought it might get ignored. But please delete immediately. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as relatively common misspelling. finds 117 misspellings, not scannos from what I have seen.  finds 191 000 hits. The ratio of the two numbers is 1632, which leads me to keep. Calibration of ratios that I am using is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Has this been deleted out of process? What did the entry say previously?  Why don't deletions show up in an editor's contributions?    D b f  i  r  s   20:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ivan Štambuk deleted it 19, October 2014. 10 days from nomination does seem to be pretty quick, especially 2 days after an opposing view was posted. I notice, though, that Renard had changed the tag from to  the same day he added it, so Ivan may not have been aware of this discussion.
 * As to the merits, I don't share Dan's childlike faith in statistical tests, but I wouldn't call the 73 hits I got in Google Books "rare", given that scannos are unlikely to add a letter, and that books are usually edited and have fewer misspellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I indeed deleted it in an edit spree of emptying the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion category. Restore if citeable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining what happened. I now see why I couldn't trace the history.  There do seem to be quite a few instances of this mis-spelling in Google Books.  I wonder why Ngrams doesn't find them.    D b f  i  r  s   22:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1632:1, way too rare. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Chuck & Dan don't think so. If the mis-spelling is this common in books, then it's probably much more common in unedited text.    D b f  i  r  s   08:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know they don't think so; I read their comments. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as uncommon misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Donnanz (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (explicit bolding). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What are 7 spellings that the supporters of "delete" consider to be common misspellings worth keeping? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For English, how about, , , , , , and ? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * These are alternative spellings, not misspellings. Spelling "tonight" is even found in many dictionaries that do not list misspellings: ; specifically MWO, which has a usage note mentioning some people deeming the spelling wrong. Most of the other ones are clearly intentional formations, like eye dialect spellings. The items mentioned should not carry misspelling: template (as they don't); the template should not be used to mark prescriptivist stances. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "misspelling" is inherently prescriptivist; you can't label anything a misspelling without being prescriptivist. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Relative frequency is a fact and we can label things as misspellings based on such facts. Even descriptivist dictionaries exclude some attested items as misspellings, and this does not make them any less descriptivist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were being purely descriptivist about it, we'd label them "rare alternative spellings" rather than "misspellings", which is by its nature a value judgment. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "misspellings" is not a value judgment; it is no more a value judgment than "miscalculation". Misspelling is a failed attempt at spelling; the person writing or typing tried to create a certain spelling but produced another one (happens to me all the time). In User talk:Dan Polansky/2013, I propose to understand misspellings as failures of transmission over a noisy communication channel. Errors of transmission are facts; to label a difference between the sent message and the received message as an error and to label the means of detecting it as an "error-detecting code" is an act of description, not of making value judgments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They're totally different things. A miscalculation is an error in an objective mathematical fact; a misspelling is a deviation from a socially accepted norm. It's like breaking a taboo or a law. There's no "noise" involved in a misspelling, merely ignorance of, lack of interest in, or deliberate violation of the artificially imposed standard spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not share this definition of "misspelling" as a violation of "socially accepted norm", especially not for a language like English that does not have a prescriptivist language academy. An error in transmission over a channel is a fact (in its being an error), not having to do anything with "socially accepted norm". When I make a misspelling, I see myself as making a harmless error of transmission rather than seeing myself as engaging in a "violation" of a "socially accepted norm". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not how I would have thought about it, but I think Polansky's view is a useful one for us. A misspelling is a spelling used by someone who would recognize themselves as being in error if it is pointed out to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have a language academy, but we do have authoritative (prescriptivist) dictionaries, schoolteachers, proofreaders, and copy editors. A misspelling is a spelling that would be marked wrong by a schoolteacher and that would be corrected by a proofreader or copy editor. That spelling is a social norm rather than an objective truth is shown by the fact that what is considered a misspelling can vary by location ( is a misspelling in the UK but not in the US) and time (German is a misspelling today but it wasn't 20 years ago). It's not necessarily a transmission error because unless the misspelling is so extreme that I can't figure out what you're trying to say, you have successfully transmitted your message. If someone writes recieve instead of, I know what they mean, so there's no error in transmission; they simply failed to follow the artificially imposed rule that this word is to be spelled . (On the other hand, when my sister's dyslexic roommate wrote bansy on the shopping list, that was a transmission error because my sister had no idea that her roommate was trying to say .) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I spell "recieve", there is an error of transmission from the store of syntactic objects in my mind to the medium, such as paper. Of course, I speak of transmission of syntactic objects rather than semantics, since that is what misspellings are about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)