Talk:Horsemaning

Medias use "horsemaning" instead of "horsemanning"

(please google "horsemanning" and "horsemaning", there are way more result with single "g", and media dropped the use of double "g" horsemaning as well) http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-501465_162-10009033-11.html?tag=page%3Bnext 24.90.19.27 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A horse mane and a horseman are completely different things. Ambiguity in this regard makes little sense. Clearly the term should be horsemanning if it's based on the Headless HorseMAN.204.92.65.10 (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "horsemaning" makes less sense, compared to "horsemanning". On the other hand, there is no ambiguity—the word, whichever way it is spelled, can only mean one thing. At the same time, "horsemaning" implies that it is pronounced /hɔɹsmɛɪniŋ/, and is related to a horse's mane, when it should probably be pronounced /hɔɹsmæniŋ/, a pronunciation reflective of the "-man" origin, and supported by a double-N spelling. I'll start an RfC below.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Title spelling

Should the article title contain two N's (implying a pronunciation of /hɔɹsmæniŋ/ and reflecting the "-man" origin) or one N (the more commonly-used spelling, with ~8000 more Google hits)?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I thing it should be "horsemanning" because this comes from the headless horseman and has nothing to do with a horse mane. DBlomgren (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)