Toby Bartels wrote:
Ed Poor wrote:
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but in the spirit of "be bold" I deleted the [[Fuck]] article. It just seemed pointless to have an article called f***.
You're supposed to be bold about *updating* articles, not *deleting* them!!!
If someone wants to write an article on obscenity or censorship, and treat the problems the term f*** has had, fine. But I don't want to see every dirty word (or word that's gotten the dirty end of the stick) have its own article.
That may well be true. So did you copy the information on [[Fuck]] to [[Obscenity]] and then make [[Fuck]] a redirect to [[Obscenity]]? Or did you just delete the information?
(Here I am assuming that [[Fuck]] did actually have information on it, and wasn't one of the "microstubs" that another thread is going on about.)
-- Toby [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I agree. Link all the random obscenities to a single "obscenity" article, which gives the whole subject a thorough treatment... and that includes etymology, history and usage of the commonest / most vulgar as in the [[Fuck]] article.
Neil