Talk:Fuck

Fugger and "fuckerey"

I wonder whether the German term "fuckerey," apparently first used in the early 16th century in reference to Jakob Fugger's extreme profiteering and allegedly resultant mass impoverishment (e.g in Tyrol), might be an explanatory addendum or merely is coincidental? Earlier uses are possible, especially since the Fugger family's latinzed version is "Fucker" (e.g., Fucker advenit dedit XLIII denarios dignus - Tax Code, Augsburg, 1367) and given their Europe-wide reach beginning in the mid to late 14th century (Source: Damals, 7, July 2004, pp. 15-23 and pp. 25-29)

Page view spike

See page views here - This page has consistently appeared as one of Wikipedia's 50 most viewed pages every day the past month or so. The linked site (this page's views over time) shows it getting about 100,000 every day. Compare this to around 120,000 every month before June (t's barely short of WP:25, and on the page view viewer, the surge starts on June 12, 2025). What confuses me is that since June 12 there's only been about 15 edits to the page, and there's no specific event that would obviously drive this many views (except maybe Trump saying it on air (NPR), but that story broke 11 days after the surge started). In addition, most views appear to be coming from Desktop (Mobile App views has a surge, but it started a few days later, and Mobile Web views actually declined while Desktop views were peaking). Anyone have any idea why? Departure– (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

(contribs watcher) Looks very familiar to the Neatsville, Kentucky article, which was the subject of a long VPM discussion that generally concluded that the view count was being botted, although there isn't a clear motive. As for this article, I'd assume it's either someone messing with a script or just a troll messing around so the article appears on the Wikipedia app's "most-read" list. Note that the talk page views have remained consistent, which is where I get my belief that it's being unnaturally altered. — ^EF⁵ 21:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I've brought this issue to VP at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 83#Neatsville page view saga continues. It appears one possibility is that an ad blocking script for YouTube is embedding the article, perhaps as some sort of practical joke. Departure– (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Why is this on the top read list?

On the Wikipedia app, it keeps saying this article is one of the most read on the top read list, why? 2600:1003:B144:85B3:85A5:8F5:98D4:4651 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe some high profile site is linking to it and talking about it? I'm not sure if there is any easy way to find out what or why. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Because it's a pretty decent summary of what's going on in the world these days I guess. 2001:9E8:4618:8E00:7839:B2D:B387:F2E3 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Okay, I'm going to start out by saying it. I actually like infoboxes generally. They're great for things like places, where there's a lot of standard, key data you can get a a glance, like area, population, etc. On the other hand, they're terrible for things that are generally dissimilar and where anything you try to add is going to be couched in nuance. This is one such case, and {{infobox profanity}} has to be one of the most inane examples I've seen of trying to shoehorn in an infobox where it doesn't belong.

It seems that it was added fairly quietly back in April in these edits. I think it should be taken back out and reverted to the status quo ante. Anyone else have any thoughts? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this infobox as adding anything useful to the article. It's nothing but a terser version of a part of the lead. Meters (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. The infobox should be removed from 10 articles that have included it. It's kinda stupid and arbitrary. Shit and Chicken shit get their own boxes, but why not Bullshit? GrafiXal might want to chime in here, being the originator and implementer of the infobox. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a waste of space in many cases, and especially here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: all messages here

The meaning of the infobox was to provide a simple datatable of the words' origin, meaning and pronunciation (similar to a dictionary). An additional reason for it was also because of how infoboxes are commonly used to help with simplicity of important information here; creating the common visual experience of reading a Wikipedia article by including a prose summary of the article and a infobox of the important info.

I don't mind removing the infobox from this article, as well as other articles, if the consensus is that its addition creates more damage than it tried to fix.

Thanks for the tag! @Jpgordon GrafiXal (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I see I was late. I apologize. I only saw my notification about this just now. GrafiXal (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me that the correct venue for discussing the {{infobox profanity}} template is at that talk page. Whether to keep it, modify it, or take some other approach impacts more than just this page. i.e. it's a matter of wiki policy and should be assessed with attention to a wider scope than just this particular article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Or just get rid of the ten instances of it, which are exactly as useful as this one. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Fuck and shit

Fuck and shit has outdated sources. Any way to fix this? ~2026-34369-7 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)