Talk:c-word

b-word
(this is Haplogy (話) 22:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) adding three recently created entries below)

g-word
Noun senses. Our definitions are "any word that starts with the letter [whatever] and one doesn't wish to say explicitly". SOP. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps with a sense of not present (and not very natural): "In combination with a letter, a word beginning with that letter that is taboo in some way."? The catalog of words for which each of these is a common abbreviation is not short. The attestable ones would probably help someone understand other unattested possibilities.
 * This is a case where the decoding function of a dictionary is a sufficient justification for the entries. As one of the points of using these is to disguise what one means from a casual eavesdropper, listing the common ones seems reasonable. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the sense of word is the usual one, and s-word means just "word starting with s". Compare e.g. looking for an A word. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This has a very snowclone-ish quality to it. I'm sure one could take any word one wants to assert or pretend is unspeakable and make such a construction out of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all except f-word and n-word, which have very specific meanings even out of context. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we substituting personal opinion for attestation? DCDuring TALK 20:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this is RFD, not RFV. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Wiki's right. Aside from nonce usages, everyone knows that f-word means fuck, not faggot nor fellatio nor fart nor another naughty word starting with "f". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all except f-word, n-word, and c-word. Unhelpful to just have a series for all 26, plus presumably additional variants (the Æ-word, the Š-word). Those listed have very specific uses. If Wiki & co. really don't recognize that c-word refers explicitly and solely to cunt, mark it as an Americanism. It's still valid. — LlywelynII  08:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We try and recognize reality, where there have been a half-dozen books with C-Word in the title referring to cancer. I can find n-word referring to "no" and, er, something in Polish grammar. For any of these words "explicitly and solely" is an overreach.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said solely, I said that we should keep the ones that are unambiguous when out of context. For example if I found a book titled "History of the F-word", I will assume it means fuck without a second thought. If I found a book titled "History of the N-word", I will assume it means nigger without a second thought. However, if I found a book titled "History of the C-word", I would have to double check it before I am sure that it is referring to cunt. --WikiTiki89 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The person I responded to said solely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How about just keeping the ones that are citable per WT:CFI and not the generic "any word that starts with the letter [whatever] and one doesn't wish to say explicitly" senses which I believe are not includable. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't see anything obvious about these forms existing. I admit that once you have learned some of the listed items, the other ones can be derived as for decoding (their actual use cannot be derived), but you need some to perform the derivation. If some of these combinations are actually unattested, that is a matter for WT:RFV; "Æ-word" and "Š-word" mentioned by someone above do not seem to be attested. As for other dictionaries (an auxiliary criterion), see, , , , , , , . I have sent r-word to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Definite keep for f-word - too common, undecided about the rest - letting the community decide. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, generally. To the extent that [letter]-word combinations are attested, these should be kept. If usage for a particular example is tenuous, perhaps a well-organized appendix is the answer, but at the very least, b-word, c-word, f-word, and n-word are likely candidates for having well-defined and clearly attested meanings. bd2412 T 20:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've introduced several of these, and usually with citations.  As it is, the idea that we should have 26 entries is nonsense.  Only certain initial letters have been combined with "word", and those are what the entries are for.  I got lazy after awhile, but you can find numerous citeable references for "r-word"=recession, "c-word"=cancer, "t-word"=taxes, and so on.  I just did a ProQuest Historical Newspapers search on the NYT, and they list almost 6820 results for "r-word".  The first three I checked were for "racism", "rationing", and "retirement".  And the Washington "R-word" controversy had been big news the past month&mdash;in fact, that was what inspired me to add these terms in the first place. Choor monster (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I should emphasize the 6820 count is greatly exaggerated, since anything ending with "r" followed by "word" is a hit. Nevertheless, it's still like shooting fish in a barrel: I've added four NYT print citations (3 really, plus a quote taken from on off-line novel used in a NYT book review) in the time since the above comment of mine. Choor monster (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep f-word, keep n-word, not sure about the others – perhaps keep with less specific definitions along the lines of "any word beginning with [letter] that one does not want to specify". Having separate definitions for every potential word in question that we can find is silly. Ƿidsiþ 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept c-word, f-word, and n-word, clearly. The others should perhaps be reconsidered on a case-by-case basis. I certainly do not see a clear consensus for deleting them collectively. bd2412 T 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)