Talk:List of films that frequently use the word fuck

message: I bet the information on this page is incomplete... it just feels too slanted towards De Niro/Scorsese/Tarantino/Pacino.... Pcb21| Pete 18:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *The Sun:A Wikipedia spokesman said yesterday: "'Nil by Mouth is a classic film but it's almost non-stop swearing.'" (I think this the article that started it all)
*Sky News: "In second placed in the movie poll, by encyclopaedia website Wikipedia..." Read
*Newindpress.com "A new poll conducted by encyclopedia website Wikipedia" Read
:*Hindustan Times (tabloid edition) republishes story Read
*The Mirror: "...Encyclopaedia website Wikipedia, which carried out the study..." Read
*The Scotsman: "according to the study by Wikipedia"
*Sunday Times: "...those diligent contributors to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, actually sat down and counted them"  Most accurate article so far only because the word "study" was not used.  
D'oh.
:D'oh is exactly right. Time to put this back on VfD? — Trilobite (Talk) 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, who cares? An offbeat list in a repository of human knowledge? STOP THE PRESSES. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled 2

message: Where did this pop up from, how come all of a sudden "Born on the Fourth of July" is down as the film that took the record from "Scarface" instead of "Goodfellas", if it had been down here the whole time it would make sense, but am I the only person who finds it suspicious that it seems to have taken the world 16 years to notice, it just doesn't seem right
: what --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Born on the Fourth of July 

message: Please note that most of the trivia information at the IMDb is submitted by users in a way not appreciably different from the way this page gets edited. Just because IMDb submissions have to be "approved" by someone doesn't mean they've necessarily checked it for accuracy. - dcljr (talk) 09:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validation via IMDb 

message: I filled in a few more films in the ASCII scatterplot for fun, but it's really not going to scale well. Then I got more interested: [dead link removed]
I think what this shows is that more "original research" is needed (and a better application for making scatterplots). But this isn't the place for it. -- Hex 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scatterplot 

message: Confidence says the f-bomb 130 times.  Hbdragon88 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confidence! 

message: It has been pointed out by an an anonymous visitor to the help desk that "The first chart at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_ordered_by_uses_of_the_word_%22fuck%22> lists this movie twice -- once as a chart-topper with 560 usages of the word and secondly at position No.25 with 203 usages of the word.  Unless there are two versions of this film (which does not appear to be the case), "The Devil's Rejects" should not be listed twice on this chart."  Can an administrator please make this correction since the page is locked?  Thank you - Johntex\talk 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Error - duplicate entry in first table

message: the graph of the number of fuck for teh devil's rejects does not corespond with the chart down below
the graph says the movie has more than 500 fucks, while the chart says 100 somthing...
: Learn to spell. Read what you type. Thanks The Whole of Literate Humanity 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the devil's rejects 

message: Currently whenever a new movie is added the table is just pushed down, so we've now got 57 movies listed. Should we trim this down (to.. say the top 50), or just let it drag on? Staxringold 23:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Fucks 

message: Two points:
* In the Vfd above, LostLeviathan stated:
Delete. For one thing, no one's going to type a name like that in the "go" box [...]
Goodfellas is on TV tonight and my Dad asked how many F's there are in it (as the film was at one time hailed as the record-holder). So LostLeviathan may be correct, but the article was the top result in a Google search I did for "goodfellas record use word fuck"...
* Just a thought - rather than the old "watch & click" form of counting the "fuck"s in a film, there may be film scripts available online for certain sweary movies. Copying the text and using some Count forumla (in Excel, say) would do the same job in a fraction of the time. Of course, scripts online may not always be legal and referencing could be problematic, but it could be an option in some instances...
Gram 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching & Scripts 

message: While this made me laugh when I read it, is it really appropriate to coin a neologism for the heading of the graph? -Vastango 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuckometer 

message: IMDB and Screen It both say there are 203 "f" words in the Devil's Rejects instead of 560 like this list says
What about the Forty Year Old Virgin? It has to have at least 100 fucks in it. Garden State is pretty high, too. Captain Jackson 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devil's Rejects info wrong? 

message: Just out of interest, does this only cover the word fuck, or does it also cover fucking, fucker, etc? Darksun 15:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how the article has treated it so far, but I think that all forms of "fuck" should be accepted (fuck, fucking, fucker, fucked, et cetera).  I believe it should also include songs. Jeff Silvers 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What counts as fuck? 

message: I replaced the note at the top about this article with a  tag until the matter is settled one way or another. I also changed the heading of the Fuck-o-meter. Yeah, it's funny. But sorry, this is an encyclopedia and we have to maintain an encyclopedic tone. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are more important articles to apply an encyclopedic tone to. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a tag, changed a heading 

message: The article has been tagged, and I'm not (nor do I think any user is, without expending boatloads of time) in a good position to judge the article's current accuracy.  The bigger issue, I think, is whether the article can ever be accurate. I think this article is in somewhat uncharted waters.  The previous AfD established that the people on the winning side of the issue generally thought it was "encyclopedic", "informative", "useful" and "Wikipedic".  I don't disagree with them.  The votes for deleting the article generally declared it to be "unmaintainable" and "unverifiable".  I think the problem lies in the fact that the article follows strict-scrutiny of WP:V in that it's WP:NPOV and (arguably) WP:NOR.  The source is implicitly WP:CITEed for each movie, because it's the movie itself.  The "unmaintainable" claims have some merit, but there is no policy for WP:Unmaintainable.  
The only policy that even approaches the issue presented here is WP:RS#Great_for_easy_access, which only states that it's ' preferable ' that that online sources be used in lieu of offline sources.  It's also obvious that barring an online publication of this data from a reputable and citeable source, the only source that can be cited for each movie is the movie itself.  In order to verify the 'fuckfullness' of a movie, the verifier must go through a process that is extremely time consuming.  No other type of verification requires sitting down and watching something for (what is, at best,) an hour and a half.  Pulling it off of a shelf in a library and flipping open to the correct page takes a matter of minutes.  Even if you're checking a movie for a quote, it takes only a short while to cue a tape up to a predetermined point in the movie.  There parallels to this article with online sources - for instance, I specifically remember seeing an article that cited the number of times George W. Bush referred to 9/11 or Terrorism in a speech, but the speeches were publicly available online, and using the "Find in this page" feature of your web browser, verifing the count takes a matter of moments.
The problem is that at a certain point, it becomes so difficult to verify information that it truly is just plain 'unmaintainable', and I'm not sure there's a way to quantify when that point is reached. I hate to say it, but I think we've reached it here.  We've gotten to a point where it's so difficult to verify the information that there are significant logistical obstacles to many people who, otherwise, might want to verify the information.  This puts well-meaning wikipedians at a pronounced disadvantage while, at the same time, it's as easy as ever to just make up numbers and add them for your favorite movie.  
If no one has any ideas as to how to rectify this situation, then I think we should renominate for deletion. Sorry for the essay. --Vastango 08:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to point out this link posted on the AfD:  which has counts of the F-word in many movies. This could slove the accuracy dispute. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Dispute 

message: There are nowehere near 560 fucks in The Devil's Rejects. I watched the movie last night and the total barely broke 200 (the only thing I did was count, because the movie was rather disturbing and I had nothing else to do :]), but regardless, this should be edited to correspond with Imdb's total or what have you of 203, because that is far more accurate.
:560 does coorespond with IMDb's list.  I just checked the trivia section and it says 560 f-bombs.  Perhaps someone saw the count ehre and submitted a change for IMDb?  Or maybe you should start up a website, post the number, and link it here. - Hbdragon88 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an asterik (*), then a footnote mentioning that this number is disputed? Or would that count as "original research" in the eyes of autistic Wiki-fascists? --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devil's Rejcts info definitely wrong. 

message: So it seems to me that the way the list is made, if you wanted to add a film near the top, you'd have to change the rank number of every film below it.  Am I correct?  Or would there be an easy way to alter the list? Cigarette 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly seems to be the case at the moment, and I've seen several people have to do this. Does anyone know if there's an easy way to use something like the # syntax we typically use for numbered lists inside a Wikitable? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List format

message: Ok, In the Nil by Mouth script, i only counted 310 usage of the f word on this script:
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/nil-by-mouth-script-transcript.html
And in the Pulp Fiction f word count, i counted less than 200 fucks on this script:
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Pulp-Fiction.html
SO just wondering, where did some of these statistics come from? IMDB is like wikipedia, it has facts contributed by people like us. Thomsonmg2000 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did that for the "Nil by Mouth"-script and got 308 replacements and not 470 as the list says. 213.39.230.123 12:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some info are way wrong 

message: who are the guys that counted word "fuck" in these movies.They,really,really need to do something better with their time.Dzoni 14:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just think, the time you wasted making this snarky idiot comment could have been spent learning how to write at a high school level. --Nugneant 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What I want to know is...

message: http://listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.18502  --  Zanimum 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this a source? 

message: I just removed a newly added graph, which displayed the number of fucks in a movie versus the year of the movie. Two main reasons for removal:
* Such a graph is useless because we are only looking at movies that contain a large number of fucks in this article, so the graph is heavily biased. It would be interesting so see the average numbers of fucks per movie versus the time. That information, howeverm, will not likely ever (or at least for a long time) be available
* Secondly, this article is already disputed, so we should try to keep it as clean and encyclopedic as possible. One graph is already difficult to maintain accurate here on Wikipedia, let alone two.
Cpt. Morgan 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of graph on fucks per year 

message: I wanted to know, and I thought of Wikipedia and I was happy to find it.  Just cause it happens to be about the word 'fuck' doesn't mean we should get rid of it.  If the counts are wrong, fix 'em.
: but we can't just "fix" them, that's not the way wikipedia works.  We can't just count and put that information in.  It needs to be verifiable and we need sources.  That is my only problem with this article (if these numbers were accurate and verifiable I'd be all for it) 66.66.178.73 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the above sentiment could be captured in a 100-page thesis - it would make a very, very good case for inclusionism. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found this to be totally awesome 

message: I took out the {sources} tag, since it was put up here the article improved significantly, and does list quite a number of sources. I also took out the graph, I was not up-to-date, will never be completely up-to-date and does not add anything usefull. Cpt. Morgan 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed <nowiki>{sources}</nowiki> tag and graph 

message: Nil By Mouth says 470. A ten-second task (Copy and paste script from Script-O-Rama into Word, press Ctrl-F, say to replace "fuck" with "vfdsvad", it tells you "xxx replacements were made") gave 308.
Casino says 422 or 398. I got 352.
Martin Lawrence Live: Runteldat says 347. I got 281.
The Big Lebowski has 281 or 260. I got 251.
I think this article should be deleted until it is fixed. EamonnPKeane 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should delete the "Fuck" column and leave in just the "FMG" column.  We have a citable source for that column and any errors there are theirs, not ours.  Johntex\talk 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound like a good plan, although I think it would be better to have a separate column for the fuck counts and for references, because some data are from other sources. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it just me, or is this article completely inaccurate in every area?