Talk:paeleoclimate

paeleoclimatic
Are either of these really common enough to be called "alternative forms"? I feel like they're too rare to even be included as misspellings. The actual alternative forms of "paleoclimate/-ic" are "palaeoclimate/-ic". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added one citation for each. There are a couple of dozen other ones available - do you want me to add some of them as well? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you've truly found "a couple of dozen" (i.e. about 24) for each one, then maybe it is common enough to be a misspelling (but still not an alternative spelling IMO). But when I searched Google books I couldn't even find 10 cites for each one. Maybe that's because we're in different countries, I don't know. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They seem like misspellings driven by the non-UK pronunciation /ˈpeɪ.li.əʊ/ of paleo-/palaeo-, influenced by the ae from the palaeo- spellings. DCDuring (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an RFD issue, and if we were at RFD, I'd say delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Perusing the very small number of books which seem to contain this spelling, most also contain one of the usual spellings, strongly suggesting that occurrences of this spelling are misspellings or even typos. And it is very rare compared to the usual spellings, too rare for Ngrams to plot. So I agree with Meta; delete as a rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * They are both cited. This is an RFD issue. Kiwima (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Very well; moved to RFD. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 06:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

paeleoclimatic
These have both been cited in response to an RFV, but I still contend that as misspellings they are too rare in comparison to the standard spellings paleoclimate/-ic and palaeoclimate/-ic to warrant inclusion. See bgc/ngrams for "-climate" and for "-climatic"; ngrams can't even find enough examples of "paeleo-" to plot. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 06:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Perusing the very small number of books which seem to contain this spelling, most also contain one of the usual spellings, strongly suggesting that occurrences of this spelling are misspellings or even typos. And it is very rare compared to the usual spellings, too rare for Ngrams to plot. So I agree with Meta['s comment at RFV]; delete as a rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling per Mahagaja and -sche; above all, frequency ratio cannot be determined using Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I really can't decide. Our mission statement is to include all words, rare or not. But does that include rare misspellings? I found these in, which I think is durably archived. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One-off misspellings where the authors really do know how to spell it right and the editor just didn't catch the mistake are hardly words in their own right. And that's an online journal that may or may not be considered durably archived (I don't think we've discussed scientific journals that don't have print copies). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam 10:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, since Mahagaja created a new thread rather transferring the old one: delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 12:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)