Template talk:Vulgar slang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Vulgar Slang)
Jump to: navigation, search

Need[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
Although some participants questioned the need for this template, there is no consensus for anything (especially with a long off-topic discussion whether it should be protected or not). If anybody thinks this template shouldn't exist (for whatever reason), than nominate for deletion at WP:TFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the purpose or need of this template? What is 'vulgar' is also somewhat subjective depending on the person and nation. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would further suggest that it be protected due to the strong potential for vandalism and abuse. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is already {{Sexual Slang}} which has a god deal over overlap. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 01:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Clearly a WP:TFM candidate per Whaledad, if not a WP:TFD candidate per 331dot's implication.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
If we have the template that Whaledad mentioned, I'm not sure we need this one too. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
{{Vulgar Slang}} and {{Sexual slang}} are certainly not synonymous: many of the terms in {{Vulgar Slang}} are not sexual terms ("bastard", "shit"); many of the terms in {{Sexual slang}} are not vulgar (e.g., "bareback", "beard"); few appear on both lists ("douche", "wanker", "whore"). What would be the basis for merging and what would be an appropriate umbrella title? If anything, {{Vulgar Slang}} may need to be expanded as there is a lot of other content that could fit here (see Profanity for a start), but it should certainly be moved to {{vulgar slang}} as there is no need for the capitals. sroc 💬 01:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Note also that protection is not used as a pre-emptive measure against possible vandalism that has not yet occurred: see Wikipedia:Protection policy. sroc 💬 07:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not exactly what it says, especially in reference to templates; "Highly visible templates which are used on an extremely large number of pages or substituted with great frequency are particularly vulnerable to vandalism, as vandalism to the template may introduce vandalism to hundreds of other pages. Therefore, they are frequently semi- or template-protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors.". If we don't protect it, I can live with that, but it is certainly possible.
Perhaps we should have a single "profanity" template which could be subdivided into the two categories of it we have; if a reader is interested in one category of profanity, they might be interested in the other. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a highly visible template, used on an extremely large number of pages, or substituted with great frequency, so the passage you quoted does not apply. (The rationale in those cases is that vandalism can have wide-sweeping impact; that would certainly not be the case here.) This template has a grand total of eight edits, none of them vandalism. The general principles that "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia" and "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" apply. sroc 💬 09:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I still think it could be done ("content and other factors") but as I said that is not a priority for me and I can live with not doing so. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Just because something could be done doesn't mean it should be done. The policies and guidelines do not call for protecting templates generally. Do you only want to protect this template because it has naughty words? That's not what what protection is for. sroc 💬 09:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't suggest doing so to protect it because of its content, but to do so because what might happen due to its content, which seems permissible to me. As I said I can live with not doing so and was just floating an idea, so it is not necessary to debate it further. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. Obviously, if vandalism does occur, protection should be considered as per Protection policy. sroc 💬 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Comment: To answer the question above, vulgar means common, course, rude, etc. It doesn't have to mean sexual, though it is commonly assumed to mean that. If we're ivoting on keeping it, I vote keep. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I question the usefulness of this template, especially since some of the links (e.g. arse, bastard) do not lead to articles where the word as a vulgarism per se is discussed. Should be taken to TfD for wider scrutiny. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.