Talk:fcuk

RFD discussion: May–December 2018
This has no lexical significance. DTLHS (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Initialisms do technically have lexical significance here, even if standing for companies alone. See also similar entries such as AVGN, SDA, and all sorts of others. Reason? People can't deduce them as company name initialisms from simply looking at them. I think if you want to make a serious effort to change this, you should bring it up somewhere bigger, like the Beer parlour, instead of tackling a single lonely entry, since tons of these entries already exist and it would be virtually impossible at this point to find every one. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an initialism, and I'm not interested in policies. I just want this particular entry deleted. DTLHS (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Because it's weirdly used in the lowercase? "I'm not interested in policies" sort of defeats the purpose of RFD, too. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it also used as a euphemism for the F-word, for example, to avoid NSFW filters? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, but that doesn't really make a word; it's on-the-spot messing around to dodge the filter, like bithc or w&a&nker. Equinox ◑ 06:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Inclined to delete: if it were the same thing (a clothing brand) and not an initialism, there'd be no reason to keep. As it is, it's not particularly understood as "standing for" French Connection United Kingdom; it's more like a logo. Equinox ◑ 06:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI says, and I quote:

"A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

[...]
 * Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms such as NBA."
 * Then the brand name section goes on to say:

"A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon. Apart from genericized trademarks, this is measured objectively by the brand name’s use in at least three independent durably archived citations spanning a period of at least three years."
 * Then we must consider the line about usage:

"This filters out appearance in raw word lists, commentary on the form of a word, such as “The word ‘foo’ has three letters,” lone definitions, and made-up examples of how a word might be used. For example, an appearance in someone’s online dictionary is suggestive, but it does not show the word actually used to convey meaning. On the other hand, a sentence like “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” appearing in an account of a sailboat race, would be fine. It happens to contain a definition, but the word is also used for its meaning."
 * Having all these things in mind, I think our mission now for anyone actually advocating this entry would be to see if anyone refers to this initialism outside of any reference to the company or anything related? This is sort of contradictory when using this approach, though, because it says that in the first quoted line that any initialisms, abbreviations, or acronyms are allowed, and then never mentions initialisms, acronyms, or abbreviations again on the entire page. There's no "unless" in that line, so... To those opposing this entry, should we change that part of CFI? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Kept: Purplebackpack89 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and add a sense for the euphemism. Let's not pretend that the word isn't used as a euphemism, or that the euphemism isn't derived from the acronym, or that the creators of the acronym didn't intend precisely that outcome. See Gaynor Lea-Greenwood, Fashion Marketing Communications (2012), p. 11: "Every time a new version of the fcuk slogan was released, it was considered relevant to the target market, which enjoyed the iconic and cheeky slogans"; Thomas Riggs, Encyclopedia of major marketing campaigns, Volume 2 (2006), p. 580: "French Connection was rebranded as FCUK, a move that generated extensive controversy while fueling unprecedented company growth. Outdoor advertisements in London, tagged "FCUK fashion," were outlawed by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority after widespread outrage". bd2412 T 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and add sense for the euphemism, per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a genericised trademark. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're after the horn, bro. Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's up to admins to close these, except in obvious cases. Prior to Purple trying to close it, three people were in favour of keeping and two (including the nom) in favour of deleting. That's in the territory of what I'd keep due to lack of consensus, but you should let an admin make that call, and certainly not shut people down when they come to express their opinion afterward. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No one had voted on it in three months. It should have been closed weeks before I did.  And stop making up rules to shut me down, Meta: there's no rule saying only admins can close discussions as keep.  Sometimes, I get the feeling you don't really understand what having a mop (or not having it) can and cannot do.  Although I'd note one thing both mops and non-mops CAN do is re-add RFD tags to discussions when they re-open RFDs, something you have failed to do. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 14:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Purple re non-admins closing votes, in my view non-admins can take any action admins can as long as they are technically able to take that action. With regards to this particular entry, I think that this should have been an RFV, to confirm that it has usage beyond that of the brand name. - TheDaveRoss  14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * +1: No rule prohibiting non-admins closures of RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The late-coming vote makes no difference to the outcome in this case, as far as the state of the entry is concerned. As for a non-admin closing the discussion, I don't believe we have ever delineated a rule against this. Lastly, I note that other than the dispute about the propriety of the close, the re-opening of the discussion has engendered no new discussion about the entry itself, except for the suggestion by TheDaveRoss to send it to RfV (which can be done irrespective of the RfD outcome. I am calling this closed. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * RFD kept corroborated: there are 3 keeps (discounting Purplebackpack89, perhaps wrongly) and 3 deletes (counting the nom as well). ---Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)