Talk:targetting

targetting
This word does not appear in the OED or the CED or as far as I know any other published dictionaries. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned this was brought up on wikipedia, here
 * turns up enough results that I'm not super worried (though it did only start really appearing recently). —JohnC5 (Talk 11:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking it's a misspelling because the stress is not on the last syllable, that is, on the tar not the get. As you say, with 35,300 Google Book hits, can we consider this a rare misspelling and thus delete it? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right that 35,000 is comparatively rare (that had not occurred to me). I'm fine with a delelte . —JohnC5 (Talk 14:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, given Dan Polansky's ensuing argument, I change my mind back to keep, particularly since delelte is not a word. —JohnC5 (Talk 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "delelte" is a rare misspelling. does not find it at all;  finds mostly non-English hits, it seems, although there is at least one English hit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a sneaking suspicion that if I left a note about my misspelling of delete someone would respond in this manner, but I had no idea you would actually find another example of the same misspelling. I am very impressed. :) —JohnC5 (Talk 18:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a common misspelling, per . Mispellings hardly ever get such a favorable frequency ratio: 90; is an example that comes close. Recall that Google Ngram Viewers shows frequencies from copyedited corpus. Try your own queries using items from Category:English misspellings. Keeping common misspellings was recently confirmed at Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings. Note that in 19th century, targetting was not so badly overwhelmed by targeting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It could even be an alternative spelling with frequency ratio that favorable. In British corpus, it even approaches 60 in 2000 and 12 in 1990. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly I would keep it. It could be an obsolete spelling AND a misspelling, and of course we keep obsolete spellings as long as there are three citations for them; relative frequency doesn't matter for them. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and it does appear in the OED, though only in a cite from Scottish English in 1651: " The preachers spake freelie against the targetting of weomen's tailes, and the rest of their vanitie." ("targets" were "trimmings" in case anyone is puzzled).   D b f  i  r  s   00:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've edited it to say misspelling and obsolete spelling. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right. There's something odd in British English, because the (mis-)spelling reached more than 5% of usage in the 1980s if this is accurate.    D b f  i  r  s   17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd better keep it, I guess. Donnanz (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Usage
Again citing n-grams the usage of "targeting" seems to have taken off around 1960, prior to this the varieties took preference more or less by turns. "Targetting" continues to bumble along at the same level until the above mentioned splurge c. 1980-2005. These epiphenomena must have causes. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC).