Talk:cuuute
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFD discussion: 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.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuuute
Uncommon internet slang. If we allow this, we should have entries for a thousand other elongated words, which is clearly a terrible idea.
C90259025 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#seeexy, where cuuute is also mentioned. --Lambiam 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have moved this nomination under the existing discussion, where this word is already at issue. bd2412 T 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- We have a policy for this, which allows up to three repetitions of a letter if attested, which "cuuute" meets. I'll add citations now. bd2412 T 18:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete. DTLHS (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)- Why? It meets the CFI, and is easily cited. In fact, it is one of the older examples of elongation of a "u" to be found in print, and is therefore of greater historical significance than many recent coinages. bd2412 T 18:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- How about vacuuuum? DonnanZ (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- All the instances that I can find appear from their context to be mere typos occasioned by the fact that there is already a double-letter there, which would not count towards the CFI. I also note that with respect to raw Google hits, "vacuuum" returns about 35,000, while "cuuute" returns about, 3,390,000, around a hundred times as many. Not that this is a distinction relevant to the CFI, but it would tend to support the view that "vacuuum" is far less likely to be used as an intentional elongation. bd2412 T 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was jesting a little with "vacuuuum", but the results for "vacuuum" are interesting all the same. DonnanZ (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- All the instances that I can find appear from their context to be mere typos occasioned by the fact that there is already a double-letter there, which would not count towards the CFI. I also note that with respect to raw Google hits, "vacuuum" returns about 35,000, while "cuuute" returns about, 3,390,000, around a hundred times as many. Not that this is a distinction relevant to the CFI, but it would tend to support the view that "vacuuum" is far less likely to be used as an intentional elongation. bd2412 T 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. The possibilities for made-up words with repeated letters are virtually limitless. It is not something that a dictionary needs to trouble itself with. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is true, and why we have a policy requiring attestation for words generally, and another for these specifically limiting them to those with three repetitions. The number of elongations by repetition which actually meet both tests is no more than a few hundred out of the millions of words we cover. bd2412 T 22:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it would be hundreds or into the thousands -- the impression I get from typing random examples into Google Book Search is that a significant proportion of all common words with "likely" letter duplications can be sufficiently attested. And with different choice of duplicated letter, as well as potential multiple duplications, e.g. wronggg, wronnng, wrooong, wrrrong, wronnnggg, the possibilities stack up even more. But whatever the exact number, I'm afraid I just don't agree that this stuff is dictionary material, any more than b-b-but, y-y-yes, nonono!, 2wo, sdrawkcab, unbeLIEVable, etc. Mihia (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- What is sdrawkcab? I've never seen it, and would have no idea what it meant if I saw it in print. bd2412 T 22:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BD2412: backwards backwards. Per utramque cavernam 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting. I would have thought it was some kind of play on a cab. In any case, I find no uses of it in print that are not immediately explained as the word "backwards" backwards. It is not actually used as a word having meaning. I find a bare minimum usage of wronnnggg, with only ten total hits, and only half of which visibly show use of the word. However, if we intend to exclude it, then we will need to adjust the CFI to hold such formulations to higher standards. Currently, there is no basis in policy for excluding them any more than we can exclude labour merely because the "u" is extraneous. bd2412 T 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BD2412: backwards backwards. Per utramque cavernam 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- What is sdrawkcab? I've never seen it, and would have no idea what it meant if I saw it in print. bd2412 T 22:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it would be hundreds or into the thousands -- the impression I get from typing random examples into Google Book Search is that a significant proportion of all common words with "likely" letter duplications can be sufficiently attested. And with different choice of duplicated letter, as well as potential multiple duplications, e.g. wronggg, wronnng, wrooong, wrrrong, wronnnggg, the possibilities stack up even more. But whatever the exact number, I'm afraid I just don't agree that this stuff is dictionary material, any more than b-b-but, y-y-yes, nonono!, 2wo, sdrawkcab, unbeLIEVable, etc. Mihia (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Separately noting that my keep !vote above also extends to this entry, which is now attested. !Votes to "Keep all" by User:Metaknowledge, and by extension those by User:Andrew Sheedy and User:Sgconlaw which reference that !vote, should also be read as applying to this entry. bd2412 T 14:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep cuuute 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) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would just reiterate my comments from seeexy above. Equinox ◑ 02:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. Note WT:CFI#Repetitions and note that the nomination makes no reference to CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)