Talk:implicitedly

RFD discussion: February–May 2018
This is a very rare error; Ngrams shows it to be somewhere roughly on the order of twenty thousand times less common than "implicitly". (On the other hand, some people might feel that misconstructions (where a morpheme has been added to a word where it does not belong) are more includable than simple misspellings like, say, implicitely. So, discuss.) - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Keep  - seems to have a long history in Google books - back to 19thC. Enough worthy cites there to satisfy CFI. It's comparative rareness is not really a factor, not if we want to include every word in every language. A usage note would be useful.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, CFI explicitly (or explicitedly;) says "Rare misspellings should be excluded". - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Righto, forgot about that criterion, tho' must have read it before. Change my vote to delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain. As -sche said: I wouldn't call that a misspelling but a misformation/misconstruction, and am tempted to count it as a new word. Perhaps ? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Though I initiated the RFD, I'm tempted to change my position to abstain. Perhaps it's a misspelling by someone assuming /ɪt/~/ɪd/ meant -ed, and not thinking through that adding -ed to -it would make /ɪtɪd/; compare impliced (20 BGC hits), implicedly (2). Even if it's a misconstruction, I'm not sure rare misconstructions are any more includable than misspellings, especially since we delete rare misspellings (intentional uses of a spelling that's wrong, whether or not the user knows it's wrong), not just typos (unintentional uses of a wrong spelling/form, especially identifiable when the author uses the expected spelling elsewhere). Paging through the Books results, ~150 books use, only 6 use  , so, the spelling seems to be intentional; but again, we delete even intentional misspellings when they're rare. Bleh. I remain a weak delete at this point. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain. The frequency ratio of 20000 provided by -sche above via link to GNV is rather convincing. However, what is not so clear is that this is a misspelling. Indeed, the entry is marked as "Misconstruction". Do we want to keep vanishingly rare but attested misconstructions? For a calibration there is a much better ratio: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Closed as deleted. bd2412 T 22:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)