Talk:anthralgia

Deletion discussion

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.

---

anthralgia

anthroconidia

Discussion moved from WT:TR.

I think this is a typo or tongue slip of arthralgia. It is well attested, but almost all Google Books hits (that aren’t scannos) use anthralgia once or twice and arthralgia much more often elsewhere. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthroconidia may have the same problem. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

When works which use a nonstandard spelling x also use the standard spelling y, that is IMO the clearest possible indication that x is a misspelling or typo (short of addenda to or subsequent edition of the works outright specifying that x was a mistype). Anthralgia is not even a common misspelling; arthralgia is a thousand times more common. I would delete anthralgia. Anthroconidia is so much rarer than arthroconidia that it doesn't even appear in ngrams; I would delete it, too. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Delete both per -sche. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep anthralgia as a common misspelling: (anthralgia*1000),arthralgia at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. gives a handsome frequency ratio of 1000 in copyedited corpus. Compare e.g. (beleive*2000),believe at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.; beleive. In CFI, it is WT:CFI#Spellings. For frequency ratio calibration, see User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But how many of those are scannos, i.e. cases like this where the text does say "arthralgia" but Google thinks it says "anthralgia"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • On the 1st page of google books:"anthralgia" with 10 hits, I find only one scanno. So that looks good. Someone may want to examine more pages of the results. Even if every 2nd hit were a scanno, we would have frequency ratio of 2000 instead of 1000, which is still fine for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Abstain on anthroconidia: absent from GNV, only 15 hits in google books:"anthroconidia". It probably should not be kept as per [[WT:CFI#Spellings] since it is a rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Arthroconidia is the plural of arthroconidium. anthroconidia occurs 4 times (~3%) in Google books with preview, whereas arthroconidia occurs about 135 time in Google books with preview. In contrast, another misspelling, arthroconida, occurs 11 times (~8%). Ie, arthroconida has a better claim for being a common misspelling than anthroconidia. DCDuring TALK 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• anthroconidia deleted by -sche; anthralgia not yet decided. @User:-sche: Can you explain why factor 1000 in the copyedited corpus of Google Ngram Viewer does not establish a common misspelling for anthralgia, based on the data that you have used to establish a threshold of commonness? Can you name some 7 items that you consider to be common misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete anthralgia. bd2412 T 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)