Talk:motted

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012
Not in any dictionary. Doesn't look much like a noun. Any takers?
 * 841 raw google hits for "motted skin" but I think the pertinent question is "Did you mean "mottled skin?" Fugyoo 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another entry. If this is valid, then it's very very regional. Maybe Gtroy would care to tag it as such? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many pages on the Internet where mottled and motted coexist (eg. "Ice blue motted background with brown mottled dots", or "For sale - Mottled Japanese bantam hatching eggs (...) Here for Auction is 6 Pure Black Motted Japanese bantam"). Seems like a typo to me, but a rather current one and it may deserve a . As for the "emergency medicine" tag, I'm rather doubtful. — Xavier, 00:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a bunch of citations
 * Yes there are 3 non-scanno citations now for the "mottled" sense so seems best to me. Fugyoo 06:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's just assume that all usages are scannos and typos except for W H Auden's usage in 1947 where he deliberately made up the word "motted" to mean "having a motte".  Since no-one else picked up his new coinage, it doesn't deserve an entry does it?  We could add a note to the mis-spelling entry.    D b f  i  r  s   21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * made some big changesAcdcrocks 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying the scanno, but, in view of the obvious scanno (8kin) in one of your chosen cites, what makes you think that "mottled" was not intended in all of them?   D b f  i  r  s   08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objection if we follow Fugyoo's advice and make it ?   D b f  i  r  s   22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any cites that make sense, may I go ahead and treat this as a ?   D b f  i  r  s   23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

motted
An old Gtroy entry for a [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28motted*5000%29%2Cmottled&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=6&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28motted%20*%205000%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmottled%3B%2Cc0 rare] typo (or perhaps in some cases a misspelling). Of the four citations Gtroy had found, three all used the spelling "mottled" more (suggesting "motted" was a mere typo), and [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Citations%3Amotted&type=revision&diff=33765356&oldid=16333366 the fourth seems to have been typoing "mooted" instead]. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as common misspelling; the frequency ratio after 1950 is 2500:, which is good enough for a common misspelling; compare e.g. ). The above mentioned fact that 'three [...] used the spelling "mottled" more' does not suggest to me that this is a typo rather than a misspelling; I'd hazard a guess that many works containing the misspelling beleive also contain believe. Moreover, WT:CFI only excludes rare "misspellings"; it does not have any statement excluding "typos". Thus, CFI excludes rare typos to the extent they are considered rare misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The statistics given don't convince me, specially as the "misspellings" seem to be mere typos. In English confusions based on someone attempting to spell based on pronunciation or a parallel to another word (again usually pronunciation-related) seem to me to be the kind of error worth offering assistance with. I don't think we are providing any useful help with scannos, typos, and thinkos. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: Can you please list some 7 items that you think are "common misspellings", to be kept per WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * from Category:English misspellings, page 1


 * abacot - ?
 * abbreuvoir - ?
 * abhored - misspelling
 * abhoring - misspelling
 * abietadenic - ?
 * abit - misspelling
 * abitrary - ?
 * abnoxious - misspelling
 * aboricultural - misspelling
 * aboriculturist - misspelling
 * aboriculturists - misspelling
 * aboriginie - misspelling
 * abortation - ?
 * abration - misspelling
 * absail - ?
 * absailing - ?
 * absolvitur - ?
 * absteinous - scanno for abstemious?
 * abstenance - misspelling
 * abstenious - misspelling
 * accessability - misspelling
 * accessable - misspelling
 * accessive - misspelling
 * accessively - misspelling
 * acclamate - misspelling
 * accomodate - misspelling
 * accomodating - misspelling
 * accomodation - misspelling
 * accomodator - misspelling
 * accordian - misspelling
 * acetominophen - misspelling
 * acknowelege - misspelling
 * acount - misspelling
 * acousticly - misspelling
 * acquifiers - ?
 * acrue - misspelling
 * ad hominum - misspelling
 * ad nauseum - misspelling
 * adament - misspelling
 * adamently - misspelling
 * adducable - misspelling
 * ademona - ?
 * adhesine - misspelling
 * administeration - misspelling
 * adolase - ?
 * adryamicin - ?
 * adultry - misspelling
 * advancable - misspelling
 * aerobreaking - misspelling
 * æroplanes - alt form
 * Aferdita - thinko
 * affadavit - misspelling
 * affadavits - misspelling
 * affectionado - ?
 * afformation - misspelling
 * aformentioned - misspelling
 * afterall - misspelling
 * aggregrate - misspelling
 * aglomerate - misspelling
 * agnoletti
 * agrandize - misspelling
 * agress - thinko
 * aint - misspelling

I have no idea of the relative or absolute frequency of these, which has to do with whether it is "common". In some cases I have no idea what the misspelling is supposed to be a misspelling of and don't really want to expend the effort to resolve it. I'd like to see your assessment of the same list. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: Thank you for listing misspellings. Can you please list some 7 items that you think are "common misspellings", with the emphasis on "common"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your request, I won't be assessing the list--that is too long--but I will assess 7 items:
 * abstenance - - common misspelling
 * abstenious - - common misspelling
 * accessability - - common misspelling
 * accessable - - common misspelling
 * accessive - - rare misspelling - the confounding with other senses does not hinder the "rare" judgment
 * accessively - - rare misspelling - the confounding with other senses does not hinder the "rare" judgment
 * acclamate - - hard to tell since the misspelling sense is confounded with other senses
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a broader range of opinions on this. The cutoff for inclusion of misspellings is an area that bedevils us. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with DCDuring—it's not helpful for us to include typos. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)