Talk:icthyoid

RFD discussion: June 2014
I believe this is just a misspelling of ichthyoid, but I know nothing about the subject. Ewweisser (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * does not find "icthyoid". finds 12,600 hits, while  finds 29,500 hits.  finds no more than 61 results (after clicking right), while  finds 2,780 hits. The ratio of Google books hits is approximately 45, so I think this could be ranked as common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ichthy- words would seem to be a likely source of those. Still, the incorrect version should definitely be marked as a misspelling and referred to the correctly spelled form. There's no need for a vote to do that, so I'll take care of it now. I would keep the entry as such, though, There's a genus Icthyophaga that formally propagates this error. bd2412 T 17:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP has the genus as, are we sure our Icthyophaga isn't itself a misspelling? - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are some pretty high-level sources for either spelling of that one, both going back hundreds of years (though "Ichthyophaga" predominates". bd2412 T 18:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be amused by these hits at Google Books for Icthyophaga ichthyaetus. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are amusing, but also a reason to keep some form of this entry. bd2412 T 20:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway, keep as a misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the definition has now been reformed, I think it would be uncontroversial to close this as kept as a misspelling. Any objection? bd2412 T 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Boldface keep, to remove any doubt about my stance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kept as reformed. bd2412 T 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)