Talk:enthousiastically

enthousiastically
According to Google's ngram feature, this spelling is less than 1/6000th as common as "enthusiastically" — not a "common misspelling", IMO. It's also defined as an adverb but with a POS header that says "adjective"... - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring TALK 14:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the ratio of 6000 still seems okay for a common misspelling. I have checked User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013 to see what sort of frequency ratios there are for misspellings. Don't forget that Ngram shows you copyedited misspellings. Here is for instance with the factor 3200. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my comment below. Donnanz (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 09:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

enthousiastic
As above. This spelling is about 1/4000th as common as "enthusiastic", not a common misspelling, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 08:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring TALK 14:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both (they don't even seem citable as obsolete spellings). Ƿidsiþ 14:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Misspellings shouldn't be perpetuated. I have never come across it anyway. Donnanz (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not perpetuating misspelings, since we are marking them as misspellings, directing the reader to a standard spelling. Do you suggest that Category:English misspellings should be deleted? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it and I have come up with what I think are reasonable criteria. A misspelling can be considered attested if it has three attestations where it occurs multiple times within the same work and is the only spelling used within that work. Otherwise, it is a typo and should not be included. --WikiTiki89 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a reasonable criterion of a misspelling, since I don't make the distinction that you suggest between typos and misspellings, and I find it unreasonable to require of a common misspelling that it is systematically there in a single work; your proposal seems to be an ad hoc invention not based on any empirical research. A misspelling can IMHO be recognized by its frequency ratio to the frequency of the mainstream spelling, as I have argued at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013. A misspelling is common if its frequncy ratio is quite high, say 1:10000 or better in a copyedited corpus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Recording of misspellings should be limited to common ones. I don't regard this pair as common misspellings. Donnanz (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A typo is a random misspelling that occurs by accident without the knowledge of the typer/typesetter. I don't think we should include such misspellings. On the other hand, misspellings that arise due to incorrect knowledge or confusion with another word (i.e. if the typer/typesetter spells it the way he intended, but what he intended was incorrect) are much more useful to record in a dictionary. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what a typo is, I make them myself. Does Wiktionary record common typos as well? I think this pair would be more common as typos rather than misspellings. Misspellings are due to someone not knowing the correct spelling, in other words they are spelt that way intentionally. Donnanz (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was aimed at Dan Polansky. But I'm glad we agree about the different between typos and intentional misspellings. --WikiTiki89 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz: Re: "Misspellings are due to someone not knowing the correct spelling, in other words they are spelt that way intentionally.": I don't think this is the customary meaning of the word "misspelling". does not suggests that misspellings are per definition intentional. "Common misspellings" are not necessarily intentional. We include them since people are more likely to search for them, and we want to explicitly say "this is a misspelling" rather than staying quiet about it by having no entry; at the same time, we direct them to the correct spelling, so they can find the actual definition rather than staring at a blank page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 09:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)