Talk:Fu
Appearance
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
From VfD:
Dictdef of a slang term. RickK 23:09, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Slang term, but it has been around for quite a while. I think it originates in Joe Bob Briggs's movie reviews, where he refers to any exploitative element in a movie as -fu. It's funny when he says it. Geogre 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please Merge with Kung fu. The phenomenon of appending "-fu" to words and "your [whatever] is weak" jokes are extremely widespread. And Animefu, is, in fact, a popular Anime website linked from the front page of Slashdot. - RedWordSmith 02:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)- On second thought, Gwalla's right, the Kung Fu article actually is a bit long. Just plain keep. - RedWordSmith 21:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Widely-used suffix with an interesting, if silly, history. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed with Wile E. Also, merging with Kung Fu would merely clutter that article with something that isn't terribly relevant to its topic. Keep. — Gwalla | Talk 18:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Aside from the reasons already mentioned, suffixes are included in Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to exclude a slang term. Maybe we need an article listing slang suffixes? • Benc • 22:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've done a bit of work on it. Fire Star 18:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonably close to encyclopedic. - Nat Krause 20:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Your wiki-fu is strong, Fire Star. Keep. DS 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems meaningless. No one knows what it means. ("Peeping-Tom fu. Handcuff fu". "Flame-thrower Fu". "Whiskey-bottle Fu". ???) Joe Bob Briggs seems to use it for everything and anything; it'll mean garbage soon. Mandel 11:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
end mvoed discussion
Explanation needed
[edit]"Fu is a word meaning expertise" appears to be an unsubstantiated claim - when and where does fu = expertise? A link to a relevant, explanatory page would be more useful than a link to "expertise". 192.43.227.18 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) ws
- I agree. Some explanation needed here. A bare link to "expertise" is not informative. Acsenray 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)