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