Wikipedia talk:CONSONANTS

What an awesome essay this is. --Doncram (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

...awesomely bizarre :D ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Real thing" is not a criteria in regard to deletion, though. We should be asking whether a high proportion of consonants is correlated with WP:V and WP:N. Based on this essay at this point in time, I'd say the sample size is too small. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The sample size might be small, but it's big enough to do a calculation;

Correlation of consonant density to existence

Data		Consonant density	Existence	C Deviation	C Variance	E Deviation	E Variance	Covariance	Correlation
	n	c	e	dev(c) = (c − c)	var(c) = (c − c)2	dev(e) = (e − e)	var(e) = (e − e)2	cov(c,e) = dev(c)·dev(e)	cor(C, E) = cov(C, E) / (σCσE)
Rhynchobombyx		0.86	1	−0.01	0.00	0.33	0.11	0.00
Schtschurowskia		0.73	1	−0.13	0.02	0.33	0.11	−0.04
dfgdgdsg		1.00	0	0.14	0.02	−0.67	0.44	−0.09
TOTAL	3	2.59	2	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.67	−0.14
MEAN		0.86	0.67	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.22	−0.05	−0.89
Standard dev	σ()=√var()				0.11		0.47

This shows a correlation coefficient of −0.89. That is, a very strong anti-correlation. That is, exactly the opposite of the claimed effect – probability of existence goes down as the consonant density goes up. I suspect a bigger problem than the size of the sample is that it was not chosen at random. SpinningSpark 16:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to be suggesting that better test of this hypothesis would involve random combinations of letters, and a calculation of whether random combinations with higher consonant density are more likely to produce words. All we need is a random letter-combination generator. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I'm suggesting the whole idea is a heap of dingo poo. SpinningSpark 16:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

zzz

Zzyzx (incredibly, a disambiguation page, as is Zzz and Xyzzy), Zzyzzyxx, and ZZZZZ all exist! SpinningSpark 16:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)