Talk:seeexy

RFD discussion: November–December 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

seeexy

Marked for imminent deletion by WF, but should maybe get a vote since there's the section Repetitions. google books:"seeexy" Abstain. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Also aaawesome google books:"aaawesome", deeeath google books:"deeeath", deliciousss google books:"deliciousss", Jeeesus google books:"Jeeesus", oooooh (4 or 2½ repetitions depending on how you count) google books:"oooooh", pleeease google books:"pleeease", reaaal google books:"reaaal", reeeaaal google books:"reeeaaal", rrreal google books:"rrreal", smaaall google books:"smaaall", smaaart google books:"smaaart", taaall google books:"taaall", teeerrible google books:"teeerrible", verrry google books:"verrry", waaater google books:"waaater", waaay google books:"waaay", wooonderful google books:"wooonderful", yeees google books:"yeees". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And what about baaad, bayooot, biiig, buuut, cooold, cuuute, duuumb, eeevil, fuuuck, goooooo, greeeat, heeelp, heeey, huuuge, laaarge, looove, looovely, maaan, niiice, nooo, nooow, oooh, ooooh, realll, reeeady, reeeal, scaaared, scaaary, shiiit, stooop, stuuupid, suuure, tiiiny, veeery, wrooong, yaaay, yesss?  --Lambiam 12:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam Those aren't tagged. Do you want to RFD them all? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I think they should be treated the same way as the others for the sake of consistency. I had not realized that the list you posted had been tagged by another user in a kind of hit-and-run streak. I expect that all can be attested; tagging may not be worth the effort.  --Lambiam 20:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all. This is why we have a policy in place (and Wonderfool is probably just unaware of it). If there is any doubt about attestation, send to RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Metaknowledge. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but send to RfV (all of those that are not already attested in the entry). bd2412 T 04:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but send to RFV, as per Metaknowledge and BD2412. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO these are worthless entries, attestable or not. They represent deliberate "wordplay" of some kind, as though we were to have entries for words spelled backwards, or for words in Pig Latin. I think they've been discussed before more than once. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why does it matter if they are deliberate wordplay? Readers - especially those who would look something up in a dictionary - will not always be in a position to know that. This just brings us back to the question of what words are at all, which should be read broadly for a project like this. bd2412 T 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Vowel elongation is a feature of the English language just like noun possessives. At a certain point we have to stop and say we're not covering this, go read a grammar book or whatever would actually explain it. It's also important to discourage people from wasting their time creating millions these entries. DTLHS (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It matters because wordplay by definition is stretching words beyond their normal form or bounds, i.e. specifically selecting forms that would not be taught in school or found in dictionaries, in a spirit of creativity or zaniness. Trying to document such things is just silly, and doomed to failure. The fact that you could elongate literally any word in this way, with literally any finite number of duplicated letters, and that there is no change in underlying meaning, should be another red flag. Equinox ◑ 02:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not keen on this sort of entry, but we do currently have a policy on this: "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Repetitions". If it is thought that the policy should be changed, then a discussion needs to happen. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@DTLHS "discourage people from wasting their time" is meaningless on a volunteer project. There is no automatic presumption that the people who make these entries, if barred from so doing, would do anything else for Wiktionary. There is a legitimate concern that other editors will need to check and patrol these contributions, but they make up an infinitesimal proportion of the entries to which this concern applies. @Equinox, attestation requirements will keep the number of entries of this type decidedly finite. I believe have said before that I would be fine with requiring a higher level of attestation for these sorts of words, just to quell the possibility that one or two instances were merely typos. However, I strongly disagree that there is "no change in underlying meaning". The phrase, "that dog is big" is matter of fact, whereas "that dog is biiig" implies that the dog is big enough to force the speaker to pronounce the word differently to adequately communicate their impression of its size. bd2412 T 04:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

About the big dog: that's the same function served by italics. How would you feel about having a separate entry for a word in italics, on the same basis of emphasis of meaning? Equinox ◑ 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the use of italics makes the change immediately recognizable as an emphasis of the known existing word. A person initially unfamiliar with the word would be less likely to be led to believe that its appearance in italics (or boldface, or all caps) meant that it might be a different word, differently defined, than the unitalicized form. Addition of letters makes a different word, every bit as much as labor and labour are different words, and working and workin' are different words, and the English language, at least, is replete with actual differentiations derived from a reduplicated letter (e.g., stop and stoop, gal and gall, ops and oops). Secondly, italicization implies emphasis of the word within the sentence, but does not render a specific change in the pronunciation of a word. Reduplication of letters implies elongation or other alternation of the pronunciation only of the letters specifically reduplicated, not the rest of the word. "Biiig" would be pronounced differently from a hypothetical "bbbig" or "biggg" (either of which seems more likely indicate a stutter, or an overpronounced letter rather than an elongated one). "Pleeeease" would be pronounced differently from "pleassse". "Laaarge" would be pronounced differently from "larrrge". The choices of authors to indicate specific changes in pronunciation are as informative as the choice to use eye dialect, or obscure terms, or to pronounce aluminium instead of aluminum. bd2412 T 05:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree with any of that! (Though I would add that italics can also be used on a single syllable, etc.) I suppose I'd fall back on "lemmings" and ask why other dictionaries, such as the OED, don't include such things: I doubt it's purely because of space on paper. Pretty much the only one that seems interesting to me is no ("noooooo!") because it's so hugely common and looks as though it would rhyme with "boo". Ha. Equinox ◑ 05:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect they don't include them because they aren't written by volunteers (to my knowledge, at least...) and therefore have to prioritize what they spend their money on. We have no such financial restrictions, and can therefore include whatever people are motivated to add. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete most. This kind of letter duplication is ad hoc and virtually unlimited in its possibilities. Because it is ad hoc, I see no real merit in applying the usual attestation criteria. Is it really significant if three instances of reeeaaal can be found, but not three of reeaal? (I'm not saying this is actually the case, just using an example.) Someone mentioned that readers might be unsure of the meaning of "reeeaaal" or whatever and wish to look it up. This may be true, but, again, because of the ad hoc nature of these coinages, there is no particular reason to believe that people will encounter ones that are already recorded or attested, and hence (in principle) included in Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  Attestation is a shorthand for the likelihood that a reader will encounter the word in the real world. That being the case, I think the solution here is to require a heightened level of attestation for constructions like this. bd2412 T 02:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it might be good to have a way of allowing "reasonable" cases, such as perhaps "noo" and "soo", while filtering out what the nominator rather amusingly describes as "craaap". Mihia (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rescind the current policy, then delete. Per utramque cavernam 17:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • • This is pretty much my feeling as well. Ƿidsiþ 08:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The "current policy" is the CFI itself. You might as well say "rescind Wiktionary". The policy specific to reduplications actually reduces the number of reduplications permitted under the CFI by removing all having more than three repetitions of a letter or syllable. bd2412 T 04:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Very well; I'll reword it then: change the policy and explicitly disallow all reduplication entries, then delete. Per utramque cavernam 19:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep; I can see a fluent English speaker coming across seeexy and needing to look it up, not understanding what it means. I can not imagine the same for sexy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  For the record, I initially read the heading as /siːksi/ and wondered what the heck it meant. Without sufficient context, it can be hard to recognize reduplications as such. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:CFI#Repetitions, approved via Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. If existence is in doubt, send to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• RFD kept consensus to keep, in align with WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)