Talk:estiercoleros

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.

---

estiercoleros

User:Fitoschido tagged it for speedy deletion, saying "misspelling of estercoleros. It is contrary to Spanish rules of diphthongization and should not remain here to popularize it". --A230rjfowe (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fitoschido why delete just the plural but not estiercolero? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV because that page did not exist when I flagged estiercoleros for deletion. I would support deleting estiercolero as well. —Fitoschido (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy kept. This is stupid and does not belong at RFD; the word is easily citeable. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I LOVE how you call people stupid when they don’t agree with you. Ridiculous. —Fitoschido (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fitoschido: It's not about agreeing with me, it's about agreeing with WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge That is not true. It’s about you. You’re the only one who has swiftly killed a discussion process without much reasoning and with insults. Besides, you don’t seem to be much knowledgeable about Spanish, so please excuse me if I don’t think your opinion is very valuable. The misspelling is NOT “easily citable” just because a single newspaper published it. —Fitoschido (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in RFV? --WikiTiki89 17:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Only if you dispute the three cites I just added to it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

But theoretically, this discussion should have taken place at RFV. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am confused by the claim that this is not a misspelling. Although raw counts are of limited value, it's fairly striking that "estiercolero" OR "estiercoleros" gets 8220 web and 116 book hits, of which the top are the Wiktionary entry (always a bad sign) and a book discussing the word's nonexistence, while "estercolero" OR "estercoleros" gets 223,000 web and 711 book hits. (For the curious, the Handbook's citation to Eddington 1996 is to this paper (PDF), the author of which somewhat puzzlingly considered estercolero to be a nonexistent "nonce word", but which in any case found that native speakers of Spanish deemed the I-free version of this and other such words to be correct by a wide margin.) -- Visviva (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A misspelling is a product of an orthographical deviation from what is deemed as standard. This is pronounced just as it is written, and both the pronunciation and orthography are different from standard. Therefore it is not a misspelling, but a proscribed alternative form, which is exactly what the lemma is marked as being. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Unclosing. The nomination would be that this is a rare misspelling; see WT:CFI#Spellings. Such a nomination belongs to RFD. We had multiple such nominations in RFD, and no one complained. Furthermore, there is nothing to verify in RFV since this is attested. Attested rare misspellings is what we deal with in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Abstain. estiercoleros,estercoleros at Google Ngram Viewer in the Spanish corpus does not find "estiercoleros" at all. google books:"estiercoleros" gives only few hits; it gives me 31 hits. This should probably be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Switching to delete since the policy (WT:CFI#Spellings) is now to delete rare misspellings. The spelling is indeed barely attested. Visviva above also makes good points. Let me note that I do not care about whether it is "contrary to Spanish rules of diphthongization"; I only care about the actual frequency of the form, and the likelihood that, based on the frequency, it is a misspelling and a rare one too. The evidence of actual use or its lack suggests this is a rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It’s true that this is contrary to the Spanish rules of diphthongisation, but going against a grammatical rule creates a nonstandard form, not a misspelling. It is no more a misspelling of estercoleros than readed is a misspelling of read or sayed of said.

Of course, we’d be doing our readers a disfavour if its nonstandardness were not indicated in the entry, as it is in estiercolero. I recommend converting the definition to include something along the lines of “nonstandard form of estercoleros”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you know this spelling is intentional? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The presence or non-presence of diphthongisation in a Spanish word is a grammatical and phonetic matter. It has nothing to do with spelling. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. Three months is enough time to wait for consensus to form. bd2412 T 15:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)