Talk:stupid fuck

This is a noun, not an interjection. Plus: the citations are for stupid shit. --Pilcrow 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be both if you ask me "You stupidfuck!" (interjection), right? + That is one stupid-fuck looking dress you nerd (noun) right?Lucifer 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose the intention is to pass it on WT:COALMINE. You'll be lucky to attest the single-word version. Equinox ◑ 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as a matter of fact not really, I think stupid fuck stand alone merits inclusion, but as far as coalmine goes, it was very easy to find attestations, I just typed in "stupidfuck" on google and clicked book search and there it was.Lucifer 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

stupid fuck, stupidfuck
SOP. (Creator didn't bother to fix quotations or anything. I lold) —  [Ric Laurent] — 01:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ‘lold’ is not a valid word.


 * ¶ dumbfuck is (apparently) not Sum‐Of‐Parts but it is identical to these terms, so your proposition is meagre. That said, I think all profanity is pretty worthless, but if I demanded execrations to be deleted from this website, there would be an overwhelming opposition no matter what. So I do not see the point in voting for this. --Pilcrow 01:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * RFD isn't a vote.
 * The difference between stupidfuck and dumbfuck is that dumbfuck is a common compounded word, where "stupid fuck" is just two words frequently used together. "dumb fuck" and "dumbfuck" are both pretty frequently used, and dumbfuck was used enough to become its own new word. "stupidfuck" has 6 hits on google books, and I'm guessing that at least one or two of those are mis-reports by the search, but I can't check cuz my browser is being a cunt.
 * If you really think that I give even half a fuck that "lold" isn't a "valid word" then you don't know me at aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall. Plus you spelled meager incorrectly, so stick it somewhere nasty lol. —  [Ric Laurent] — 01:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ¶ Google Books results are not absolutely necessary to support entries. Remembre that “clearly‐wide spread use” is also a valid way to support an entry. Try clicking ‘next’ at the bottom of this page for a while and judge for yourself. There is also an option to search within websites by putting something like site:example.com in the search‐bar. site:twitter.com reveals many results.


 * ¶ A browser cannot be ‘a cunt’. The ‘word’ ‘cunt’ does not mean anything. Furthermore, if you want to get a G.E.D. (which is vital for college) then it would be a good idea to not write as a knuckle‐dragging, dysfunctional child like you always write. For the record: meagre is, in fact, a perfectly valid spelling and it is actually more orthographically consistent with the French and Latin ascendants compared to the allegedly ‘phonetic’ form meager.  --Pilcrow 02:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And we'll see you back in 3 days! —  [Ric Laurent] — 02:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think WT:COALMINE applies here. &mdash;Internoob 02:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still a SOP. (I haven't checked fuck to see if we have the simple pejorative, but if not we should.) If we include stupid fuck, why not silly fuck, retarded fuck, etc. —  [Ric Laurent] — 03:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's as widespread as dumb fuck, the quotations I will fix, they were a mistake by me, I was working on both entries and mixed them up. As for silly fuck and retarded fuck, no one has yet, I've never heard of a retarded fuck, but silly fuck I have, maybe you should add it.Lucifer 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a sum-of-parts to me. Also the contributor needs to decide if it is an interjection or a noun. SemperBlotto 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term "stupidfuck" is not a sum of parts, or else "headache" would be a sum of parts; we don't treat closed compounds as sum of parts. The term "stupidfuck" seem attestable even on Google books . The open compound "stupid fuck" should be kept per WT:COALMINE; it should be under the "noun" part of speech. --Dan Polansky 08:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's SOP if you know that "fuck" is used as a disparaging term of address. —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that both terms are semantic sums of their component words. I merely emphasize that we keep closed compounds even when they are semantic sums of their component words, so we keep the likes of "headache", "toothache", "stupidfuck", "dumbfuck", "beermaker", "carmaker", "shoemaking", and "coalmine". --Dan Polansky 19:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got a feeling this is WT:COALMINE abuse. Having looked on Google Groups, I think stupidfuck: can pass after all, so we should keep both. I don't like it though! Equinox ◑ 12:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Keep both and frown about it. (Though I think almost all applications of COALMINE are COALMINE abuse, so what do I know?) —Ruakh TALK 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether stupidfuck and stupid fuck mean the same thing or whether, OTOH, stupidfuck is a noun ("contemptible person") whereas stupid fuck is an adjective and noun ("non-smart or contemptible" + "contemptible person"). If the latter is the case then COALMINE wouldn't seem to apply. I don't know what evidence might prove one way or the other — and this might affect what our definition should be for stupid fuck (if kept). As it stands, our definition is "contemptible person", which matches either parsing. I suppose the burden of proof should be on those who wish to apply COALMINE, no? So delete stupid fuck pending such proof, while of course keeping stupidfuck. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If stupidfuck meets RFV then obviously keep it. But stupid fuck is not the same thing, it's just a SOP adjective + noun combo and is stressed differently in pronunciation (compare coal mine). < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * stupid fuck and stupidfuck are the same thing, coalmine proves that, if its even written one word then clearly its no SOP and coalmine helps point that out, notwithstanding, stupid fuck is the more common version.Lucifer 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August–October 2019

 * Delete as SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a stupid entry, not merely as SoP. There are far worthier SoP terms around. DonnanZ (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Julia ☺ ☆ 01:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

stupid-fuck
Sum of parts; no longer protected by WT:COALMINE now that stupidfuck was deleted as rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If hyphenated words are subject to sum-of-parts rules then why are some people arguing to keep a million "ex-" words at Requests_for_deletion/English? I think it is unsatisfactory that the word "hyphen" does not appear even once at CFI. Mihia (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ex- words are a totally different matter, they should be hyphenated in most cases. DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC).
 * I don't agree that they are totally different matter. To me it seems fundamentally the same thing. If "stupid-fuck" is deleted because it is "stupid" + "fuck", why should "ex-Christian" not be deleted because it is "ex-" + "Christian"? Mihia (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a phrase that happens to have a hyphen substituted for a space. In the case of ex-, the hyphen is connecting a dependent morpheme to its main word: one is between words, and the other is within a word. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if this is an established principle -- that certain hyphenated words are subject to SoP rules while others are not -- then I think it should be explained in the CFI. I have searched the CFI in vain for any reference at all to hyphenated words. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it further, ex- may be more like "'s", since there are cases where it seems to modify the entire phrase rather than the word it happens to be attached to, which is the reasoning behind our exclusion of exclusion of possessives with "'s" and Latin conjunction-suffixed forms (e.g "virumque"). See an arbitrarily chosen example, "ex-Baltimore" for examples. An "ex-Baltimore player" isn't a player for "ex-Baltimore", but an "ex-[Baltimore player]". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to me even more reason why these "ex-" compounds should be treated as SoP and not as creating a "new word", else "ex-Baltimore" would be the "new word", which we are saying it is not. Mihia (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because some people interpret the rules with respect to hyphens creatively, but it is also really different from stupid-fuck. The latter is either a hyphenated attributive form of stupid (adj.) fuck (n.) or just a very strange error (it isn't a compound). The other case are prefixed words that are not 'protected' by CFI because of the hyphen. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "ex-" compounds are indeed different from "stupid-fuck" in various ways that could be identified. However, they are not different on the specific grounds that I was referring to, which is that of being sum-of-parts. Mihia (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)