Talk:indentified

RFD discussion: January–March 2021
Listed as "Misspelling of identified." There are no entries coordinate with this one for any other forms of identify, including the lemma itself. This is not a misspelling, but a typo. We don't include typographical errors. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, but for the record, it's not true that we don't include typographical errors; unfortunately, there's no policy that excludes them per se. See Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. PUC – 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think some people have the misconception that indentify (and derived terms) is the correct spelling. Exhibit: this two-and-a-half page article, which contains on the first page the terms “indentification”, “indentify” and “indentified”, on the second page again “indentified” (twice), and on its final half page another “indentification”. It is difficult to see this as an accumulation of indentical typos. --Lambiam 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, delete. I don't add misspellings that I come across any more. It would make using us as a spell-checker more difficult. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like us to have a mechanism for telling people who look up "indentified" that there is no such word, and that presumably it is a spelling error for "identified", without gracing "indentified" with an actual entry. I feel the same way about many errors. If, once it is deleted, typing "indentified" brings up "identified" in the list of suggestions, then that would be a partial solution, but I would like to see a solution for errors that is a little more directed than one item amongst many in the drop-down list, but short of an actual entry. Mihia (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)