Talk:Duh

Fresh start

Even though the previous versions (which were of little use) were deleted, there probably should be an article (and/or in Wiktionary). Look, it's in the dictionary... --IByte 01:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and wrote a new stub. My example may be a little too playful, though, feel free to improve. --IByte 15:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be reflected that "duh" has been used so often that it is found to be acceptable and inoffensive in almost any circumstance. Agree? MafiaCapo 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make this page into something other than a dab it should include more than the dicdef. Perhaps something about where/why/when the word began. Taemyr 04:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer

Even if his d'oh (or doh?) is more than a different spelling, surely i am not the only one confusing it with "duh". I associate that with Moose in Archie comics, dating from mid-century, where it seemed to indicate non-comprehension: he was pushing his intellect beyond its capabilities. Is that not part of the backstory of Homer's expression?
--Jerzy•t 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "doy" came into use in the '80s, but I remember my big sister and her friends using it in the early/mid '70s. It might be a shortened form of the amazingly annoying "uh doy-hey" ... which seems forgotten by everyone who wasn't a teenager back then. Seems like some more research into this fascinating topic is called for!

The article says it d'oh! sounds similar to duh!. Really? kawaputra^torque 16:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Maybe if you try hard enough but will you really try that hard? 99.230.152.143 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dih!

What about "dih"? It's similar, but distinct in usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.102.247 (talk) 17:57, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about the lack of "durhey". 204.108.8.5 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand, merge or redirect

This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the pronunciation, meaning and alleged origins of a slang term and provides some examples of usage of the term. It also includes several synonyms and related words. I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the disambiguation page Duh (disambiguation). As the page Duh could be expanded with encyclopedic content later, I suggest to move it to Duh (slang) to preserve its history, then to move Duh (disambiguation) to Duh, and finally to redirect the page Duh (slang) to Duh. Korg (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was a disambiguation page for that term. Should have realized that there's a page for almost any TLA. I don't see any possibility for an actual article at "duh (slang)" that would ever rise above merely lexical content. And even if it were, the content has already been moved to Wiktionary. I recommend a simple move of the disambig page to this page. However, I don't think a history merge makes sense so I'm going to execute the move via cut-and-paste. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you. I notice the page is protected; could you please unprotect it? Korg (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long-running pattern of vandalism in the page's edit history, I'm reluctant to unilaterally overturn John Reaves' decision to protect the page. Is there a specific change you need made? Or can others comment on the continuing need for protection? Rossami (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the protection of this page, since it has been subject to persistent vandalism, but I don't think it should be fully protected indefinitely. At least, the page should be semi-protected. I'll ask John Reaves. Thanks, Korg (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He unprotected it. Cheers, Korg (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think it could include the following: "Duh" is an expression used to convey the idea that a person's statement is so obvious that anyone would already be aware of the idea; even a mentally-challenged individual. The term originated at a time when making fun of mentally-challenged people was acceptable. In the 1940's and 1950's Warner Brothers Studios productions of Looney Toons animated cartoons often depicted "stupid" characters who would often precede a comment with "Duuhh....." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.142.11 (talk • contribs)

1) The usage of the term predates Warner Brothers by rather a lot. 2) Even if it didn't, your proposal is still a mere dictionary entry, something which Wikipedia is not. Rossami (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Band

There existed a band called DUH (Death's Ugly Head) that released at least two albums, "Blowhard" and "The Unholy Handjob", on Boner Rec and Alternative Tentacles.
vanbauseneick 20:37, 04 Aug 2008 (CET)

"Well duh!" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Well duh! and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Well duh! until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]