Talk:digitgrade

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Kakurady

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Too rare for a misspelling entry; cf. google books:"digitigrade" (1,021) with google books:"digitgrade" (39). Delete.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

What's our cutoff? 3.7% seems like plenty for a misspelling, especially in print works that have (mostly) undergone some degree of editing. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to create it, but I'm inclined to think that anything over 1-2% is keepable. Further, turning to the web -- which is what most previus misspelling discussions have been based on -- I get 7530 for google:+digitgrade vs. 44100 for google:+digitigrade. At 14.6%, that's a higher error rate than accomodation (which is 10.9% by my Google). I'm OK with it if we want to adopt a 5% b.g.c. cutoff or similar, but unless we do adopt a strict numeric cutoff, this looks keepish to me. -- Visviva 00:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I rechecked: the number of hits for *(deprecated template usage) digitgrade became thirty-two by clicking on the last screenful of hits; of those, these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] were invisible and this one is a scanno of the correct digitigrade (see the centre of its “(d)” paragraph). So, only twenty book hits for *(deprecated template usage) digitgrade are confirmed, or <1.96% of the number of hits for (deprecated template usage) digitigrade (before similar adjustments are made to the raw b.g.c. hits for it). Google Fight gives (deprecated template usage) digitigrade (11,800) vs. (deprecated template usage) digitgrade (583), making (deprecated template usage) digitgrade <4.95% as common as (deprecated template usage) digitigrade. Bear in mind as well the fact that we’ve had an entry for (deprecated template usage) digitgrade since 15:40, 10 May 2006, so that’ll inflate the number of hits Google yields for (deprecated template usage) digitgrade. Compare google:+plantgrade (217) with google:+plantigrade (87,100): making (deprecated template usage) plantgrade <0.25% as common as (deprecated template usage) plantigrade. This, I think, is a very good reason not to listen to Google Web Search hits when considering such things in future. I conclude again that this is too rare to be kept as a common misspelling.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good point. But if we apply the same correction to the b.g.c. hits for '+digitigrade', the total number of hits becomes 336: [12]. So the actual percentage would seem to be around 8.7% [32/(336+32)], which is again quite high, particularly given that we are dealing (primarily) with edited works. I hadn't heard of any "common misspelling" criterion that would place the cutoff above 5%. -- Visviva 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK. I really didn’t expect 660 hits to be fake. Yeah, I suppose that’s common enough to be retained. However, I think the point about the especial unreliability of Google Web Search still stands.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Google Web counts are fiendishly unreliable (and often impossible to double-check), yes. Perhaps we could use a cross-section of the smaller Googles instead? -- Visviva 02:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. Book Search seems OK with some corrections; Groups Search has inspired suspicion; I haven’t tested the others enough to comment.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Consensus was Keep, deletion template removed --Kakurady 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Return to "digitgrade" page.