Talk:-fucking-

-fucking-
The entry fucking should have a usage note explaining that this is used to form compound words (I presume that such a note is currently missing.) Any 'quazi-etymological' references should be corrected to fucking. --Connel MacKenzie 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As per -bloody- hereinbefore. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we be creating fanfuckingtastic, absofuckinglutely and unbefuckinglievable or adding citations for these to -fucking-? Kappa 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I intended this question for Raifʻhār not Connel Kappa 05:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously not. Those have previously been discussed and rejected as being too formulaic.  As I said above (do you have a problem reading?  Why the hostile tone?) the formation of such compound words belongs in a usage note of fucking.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch. My apologies.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dmh’s argument on Talk:unbefuckinglievable: “[i]n sum, the construction is worth noting, even if the meaning is fairly self-evident from the parts. For that matter, unbelievable is also self-evident from its parts, but merits its own entry”. If these derived terms have indeed “previously been discussed and rejected as being too formulaic”, then please provide a link to that or those said discussion(s). See my argument for why the entry for -fucking- ought to exist hereinbefore. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The affixional equivalent of word entries’ citations are lists of words in the “Derived terms” section. To attest an affix, it must have at least three derived terms which themselves satisfy WT:CFI (this isn’t official — we don’t, as far as I’m aware, have policies that cover inclusion criteria for affixes yet — what I’m describing just seems to be emerging “common practice”). All that notwithstanding, I’m not passionately in favour of these intensifier infixes; nevertheless, if words like fanfuckingtastic meet CFI, I can’t think of a good reason to exclude them. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kappa, see -fucking- now for what I mean. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but no. Such inventions (as others have told you previously) need an extraordinary amount of evidence.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, according to you, how much evidence exactly? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Further reading: Expletive infixation.  This was also discussed on the Linguist-list a few years back, I believe... It's a fascinating topic, and I'm not quite sure how we should best approach it.  Since this is a fairly widespread property among expletives, an appendix on English expletive use (linked from the appropriate entries) might be ideal.
 * As a side note, I don't really understand why we're adding hyphens to pagenames in this way; it strikes me as rather unlikely that the general reader will ever type "-fucking-" (or for that matter "un-") into a search box... -- Visviva 06:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it exists, it is a derived term of fuck, and there should be a see-also at fucking for -fucking-, which is how on would arrive at the page. My vote per -bloody- above. DAVilla 10:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As per. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Onion quotation
Very funny, but the Onion quotation of "A-fucking-firmative" of course isn't from 1969, but from 1999, since that fake article is from their book. Mtcv 11:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

-fucking- vs. fucking
Our usage note says: "If the original word has a space, this infix is usually written with spaces. Jesus Fucking Christ! New Fucking York." Is that not the intensifying fucking rather than this -fucking-? Equinox ◑ 07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)