Talk:stupidfuck

RFD discussion: August 2019
Delete as rare misspelling (WT:CFI): does not find the form, so no frequency ratio can be determined. For contrast, compare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 10:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and burn both of them . DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Canonicalization (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all stupidfucking phrases incorrectly written as single words by people who can't stupidfucking spell. Mihia (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Did anyone bother searching books.google? It looks like this would be really easy to get three citations for. I'd probably do it now if I weren't on my phone. —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 02:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC) — On closer inspection, a lot if not most of them appear in the text as two words, though the preview shows them as one. I've found at least one, though, that's definitely written in the text as one solid word. —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If it takes serious inspection to find one real use then it's hardly worth the bother. At that point you're less documenting plausible usage and more coddling people's one-off typos. Equinox ◑ 02:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, according to the lamentable result here, there seems to be no authority for deleting people's one-off (or three-off) typos or scannos. Mihia (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rare misspellings (typos or otherwise) can be removed via WT:CFI. Scannos do not count toward attestation, by my lights, as long as they can be detected as scannos by inspecting the raster image. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That section is not clearly written in this respect since it mentions "typos" in one place as if they might be distinct from misspellings, but it does not actually say what to do about them, whether rare typos should be deleted, or common typos can be included. It does not mention scannos at all. Mihia (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We could add the following to be explicit: Typos should be treated as misspellings, and therefore, rare typos should be excluded. Scannos do not count toward attestation. But is there support for that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an awful undemocratic thing to say, but given some of the stupid bullshit that wastes our time in process here when we all secretly know it's wrong, I would probably be OK with a rule that says something like "if three people with XYZ role [admin etc.] all agree that it's patently idiotic, it can just be killed". Note: this rule will not scale indefinitely but I think it would probably save us some time over the next five years. Even Kiwima might appreciate it. I think we need to understand that there is a line between "being accepting, not being proscriptive" and "accepting every damn random keymash performed by an ape". (P.S. It's also very important that we document the deletions, like how we put RFDs on the talk page. This is good for auditing purposes.) Equinox ◑ 14:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, essentially, that there should be some way of quickly deleting patent crap such as "stupidfuck" without having to labour so much over it. If someone strongly disagrees that something is patent crap then of course it could be challenged. Mihia (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a less ambitious proposal than the vote to exclude all typos and scannos, it probably has a good shot at clearing the 2/3 threshold. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as the CFI Spelling section is concerned, what I would add is that I think the distinction between typos and misspellings, as we all understand it, should be explicitly stated, rather than assuming that the reader will necessarily know. Mihia (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What about this: any English misspelling that does not appear in Google Ngram Viewer can be speedy deleted; for such a misspelling, RFD is only opened once someone challenges the deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I understand why you think this is a good shortcut but Google is a powerful corporation with strong political bias and may shut off services overnight. It is not the wiki way to incorporate rules saying "we do X because Google does Y". Equinox ◑ 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, there would need to be a clause like "as long as GNV operates", or the like. I mean, as long as there are any speedy deletions, they do depend on search engine services anyway, don't they? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is RFD (not RFV), and the RFD-relevant rationale is that it is a rare misspelling, not that it is unattested. Nonetheless, you can put attesting quotations in Citations:stupidfuck, where they survive the entry deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, personally not a fan of spelling attributive adjectives and nouns this way. I'd also support deleting and . ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)