Talk:antiRoman
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by BD2412 in topic RFD discussion: July 2020–September 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Delete as a rare misspelling of anti-Roman. google books:antiRoman does not easily find any actual uses, non-scannos, unlike google books:anti-Roman. antiRoman, anti-Roman at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does find surprisingly many hits, but from randomly checking Google Books, these would be scannos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a misspelling. J3133 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is a misspelling since 1) in English, it is very rare to have anti-X for X being a nation name spelled as antiX; 2) somewhat speculatively, there is likely a very unfavorable frequency ratio of antiRoman to anti-Roman in Google Books, despite what GNV shows; this is suggested by inspecting google books:"antiRoman" and by the fact that the attesting quotations from antiRoman are solely from Usenet; the spelling is hard to find (or impossible?) in copyedited Google Books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- antiX being rare does not make it a misspelling; it is a rare alternative form. J3133 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Is concieve a misspelling or a "rare alternative form" and why? (It has been my position that relative frequency helps detect misspellings; if anything can be labeled "rare alternative form" regardless of relative frequency, this detection criterion breaks down.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about "antiRoman" specifically, but I know for sure I've encountered similar things (e.g. unEnglish) in edited writing. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- unEnglish seems to be a misspelling as well, but that would be for a separate RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- An important difference is that concieve changes the letters of the word, whereas antiX changes only the punctuation, which tends to be more variable. J3133 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Even so, what makes concieve mis- (erroneous) rather than alternative even if rare given that you disregard relative frequency? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Infrequency may help detect misspellings but a word being infrequent does not assure that the word is a misspelling because not all infrequent words are misspellings. J3133 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The heuristic I proposed is that if a form is very similar to another form with the same meaning but is vanishingly rarer, the rare form should be treated as a misspelling. This works only for forms that are very similar to other forms, e.g. antiRoman vs. anti-Roman and concieve vs. conceive. Thus, the frequency of a form is not considered on its own but rather in relation to frequency of another form. Thus is addressed the above objection that "not all infrequent words are misspellings". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- That does not ensure that all of the detected words using that system would be misspellings, though. J3133 (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- himand was deleted as a misspelling; should it have been? himand differes from "him and" only by typesetting error, by lacking space rather than by change in letter sequence; and spaces can vary in general, such as appletree vs. apple tree. antiRoman differs from anti-Roman only by typesetting error, by lacking hyphen rather than by change in letter sequence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no rule that would apply to all words equally; whether it is an “error” is someone’s opinion. J3133 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Question unanswered. Let's try another: What is an example of a form that you think Wiktionary should track as misspelling and why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Evidence from copyedited corpora suggests copyeditors consider antiRoman to be an erroneous spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no rule that would apply to all words equally; whether it is an “error” is someone’s opinion. J3133 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- himand was deleted as a misspelling; should it have been? himand differes from "him and" only by typesetting error, by lacking space rather than by change in letter sequence; and spaces can vary in general, such as appletree vs. apple tree. antiRoman differs from anti-Roman only by typesetting error, by lacking hyphen rather than by change in letter sequence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- That does not ensure that all of the detected words using that system would be misspellings, though. J3133 (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- The heuristic I proposed is that if a form is very similar to another form with the same meaning but is vanishingly rarer, the rare form should be treated as a misspelling. This works only for forms that are very similar to other forms, e.g. antiRoman vs. anti-Roman and concieve vs. conceive. Thus, the frequency of a form is not considered on its own but rather in relation to frequency of another form. Thus is addressed the above objection that "not all infrequent words are misspellings". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about "antiRoman" specifically, but I know for sure I've encountered similar things (e.g. unEnglish) in edited writing. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Is concieve a misspelling or a "rare alternative form" and why? (It has been my position that relative frequency helps detect misspellings; if anything can be labeled "rare alternative form" regardless of relative frequency, this detection criterion breaks down.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- antiX being rare does not make it a misspelling; it is a rare alternative form. J3133 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is a misspelling since 1) in English, it is very rare to have anti-X for X being a nation name spelled as antiX; 2) somewhat speculatively, there is likely a very unfavorable frequency ratio of antiRoman to anti-Roman in Google Books, despite what GNV shows; this is suggested by inspecting google books:"antiRoman" and by the fact that the attesting quotations from antiRoman are solely from Usenet; the spelling is hard to find (or impossible?) in copyedited Google Books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- (outdent) In 2014 and early 2015, we deleted a host of terms via RFV, as per Talk:antiZionism: antiChinese, antiArabism, antiBritish, antiDarwinist, antiMarkovnikov, antiRussian, antiZionistic. They may be attested in non-copyedited corpus such as Usenet; my position is that these are misspellings rather than rare alternative spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, rare misspelling. PUC – 09:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (all words in all languages) and add a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. What have the antiRomans ever done...
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC) - Delete —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a typo, trivially understandable as prefix anti- + Roman, only minus the hyphen. Outside of a very few words, camelCase is never used in any form of English that is not regarded broadly as mistaken somehow, so even if we were to keep the entry, it would merit labels qualifying it as proscribed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Don't care. Context dependent SOP anyway. AntiRoman Catholic? AntiRoman Goths sacking Rome? AntiRoman Italian protesters demonstrating against the government? Facts707 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Camel case is informal and easily implies hyphenation. DAVilla 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete because I do think this one is a misspelling; some other instances of CamelCase, like antiSemitic or Talk:unEnglish, seem different, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. bd2412 T 04:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)