Talk:guisto

RFD discussion: May–December 2018
The entry is misspelt; it should be giusto, which I have added. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've converted it into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rare misspelling (and some of those are clearly typos: an example, where is spelled correctly most of the time.) --Per utramque cavernam 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per PUC. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a very common misspelling: the frequency ratio is about 100, which is very favorable for a misspelling. . By the way, the entry is entered as English. Policy: WT:CFI. Frequency ratio calibration: User talk:Dan Polansky/2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling., did you see PUC's links above? When I actually page through BGC results, I see that the misspelling is really quite rare, and other usage seems to be getting in the way. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The first link by PUC is GNV without multiplication by 100, whereas I have posted the same with multiplication by 100 to show the ratio. The other PUC link shows text that has both "guisto" and "giusto", which only confirms this to be a misspelling rather than an intentional spelling by the author of the text. I don't see any negative bearing of this on my conclusion. Note that even if the frequency ratio were wrong by factor of 10, it would be 1000, which is still good for keeping a misspelling, per my calibration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In the text I've linked to, "guisto" is a typo, not a misspelling. Per utramque cavernam 15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If whatever is a typo is considered to be not a misspelling, then you have no WT:CFI-based case for deletion at all: WT:CFI only excludes "misspellings" even if attested. That's not my taxonomy/ontology, though; to me, typos are misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "If whatever is a typo is considered to be not a misspelling, then you have no WT:CFI-based case for deletion at all: WT:CFI only excludes "misspellings" even if attested." > I think that's a very devious way of looking at things. Per utramque cavernam 11:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete; turns up hits of books using both (including one where a quotation of guisto is amended in brackets to giusto), suggesting this is an inadvertent typo, not an intentional spelling. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the correction in brackets, I found "L'«Allegro» seguente è indicato come «Tempo guisto [giusto] della scuola tartinista», mentre il terzo movimento ...": I don't see how that supports the typo hypothesis at all. It is one author quoting another author and correcting what they consider to be incorrect. Whether that incorrect thing arose via typo or otherwise we cannot tell from the things observed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From a usability perspective, let's assume that this is a high-frequency typo, for the sake of the argument. If so, the chance that someone might run into that typo and want to know what it means is relatively high. That person is well served by our misspelling entry acting as a soft redirect; they are not served well by an empty page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)