Talk:Not safe for work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-11-10. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 PNSFW? 2 NSF56k? 3 Origins? 4 Acronym or spelled out? 5 What should we do about this? 6 Are instant messengers and forums NSFW? 7 Not safe for sanity 8 Publication 9 Not Suitable For Women 10 2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

[edit] PNSFW?

PNSFW? Is there any evidence this actually exists? I've always seen it written as probably NSFW Erainor 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, a simple search on google shows some margina use of it, although I'm also used to probably NSFW --Outlyer 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSF56k?

Is it worthwhile to mention Not Safe For 56k? (referring to posts or pages with very large pictures, etc, that would make the page pretty much useless for dialup users)

That's not particularly relevant here. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins?

Anyone know who first coined the phrase NSFW? I first saw it on Fark a few years ago but not sure if they "invented" it.

can we link to examples of sites using these acronyms?Blueaster 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that needed? Most messageboards use it, so it would basically just be advertisements for the sites listed. The article also clearly explains examples of what it might be used for. TJ Spyke 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym or spelled out?

Personally, I've seen NSFW spelled out numerous times in various places, but never as an acronym (or possibly I didn't notice it as an acronym). Assuming this is similar to the experiences of others, I propose we move the article to Not Safe For Work, and make NSFW a redirect.

With me it's the opposite. For some time I had no idea what NSFW meant, until I gradually noticed a pattern beginning to emerge. Don't move.--Planetary 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Google seems to agree with you. There are 913,000 hits for the phrase "not safe for work", and 8,350,000 for "NSFW". Matthew0028 10:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out^[1] for a sample Register story using NSFW. Coricus 09:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should we do about this?

From Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

"Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." Blueaster 04:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I added the templates, not because I think the info in this article is false or unreliable, but because of WP guidelines, the info doesn't seem to have a place in WP, unless we can verify it with a secondary source. Blueaster 04:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Per above, I am nominating for deletion: neologism without documentation in secondary sources. nadav 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What we should do about it is ignore it. It's a fundamentally silly and ill-conceived rule. -Toptomcat 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are instant messengers and forums NSFW?

I would think so because i got in trouble several times in school for using intant messengers. Flashn00b 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not safe for sanity

Would flash files that contain too much humor be NSFS?

Flashn00b 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication

“Not Safe for Work” is a reprisal of an article published by Bitch magazine in their Winter 2004 issue. http://adonismirror.com/01162006_leader_nsfw.htm

[edit] Not Suitable For Women

Is this a joke? - Nö†$®åM 06:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it is used at the popular Dutch weblog Geenstijl: [[1]]. There NSFW means also Not Suitable For Women, though it indicates the same kind of (sexually oriented) content.

[edit] 2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)