Talk:Not safe for work: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:55, 26 July 2017

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-11-10. The result of the discussion was keep.

Internet culture Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Pornography Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Hillary sex tape

Is this url an Obama propaganda thing?

I would argue that a Hillary sex tape is not safe for anyone. 75.72.154.22 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

still think it would be great to have the origins of this acronym if there's any way we can dig that up...josh0322 12:10, 21 April 2008 (PST)

First saw this on b3ta.com in about 2003. 80.3.31.62 (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Some references ^[2] have "acronym" meaning an abbreviation pronounced as a word such as radar, laser, Nasa etc rather than just abbreviations such as CBS. 87.114.228.201 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Is there a WikiMedia project that is "designed" for this? Sort of a "grown-up, semi-professionally-overseen Urban Dictionary"? Jimw338 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, but they're not safe for others' private property, which I assume your school's computers are. Or are you talking about a boarding school where you live on campus and own your own PC? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not safe for sanity

Would flash files that contain too much humor be NSFS?

Flashn00b 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Suitable For Women

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

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.

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.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

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

redirect

I've redirected this. Its sat as nothing but original research for about as long as its existed and there seems to be no interest in improving it. The previous AfD didn't actually address any reasons for keeping it besides WP:ILIKEIT. If someone wants to rewrite this using reliable sources please feel free.--Crossmr 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porn industry?

If you work in the porn industry, this tag would technically not apply, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.45.109 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True --96.229.146.188 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

`rel="nsfw"` HTML attribute

There was initiative for adding rel="nsfw" for NSFW links. There is extension to Firefox marking these links. Is this worth mentioning? 148.81.137.4 talk 2009-06-27, 15:44

NSFL

How about NSFL (Not Safe For Life)? I've seen it used from time to time and I guess would be similar to NLS and NMS. 94.192.52.244 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had always heard it as "Not Safe For Lunch" i.e. nauseating.

Some idiot has changed the article

Okay, so it appears that some idiot who thinks he/she is very witty just changed the acronyms to read TSFW as (Touch so nice fog ween) See, apparently this loser can't even do acronyms correctly, because it would be TSNFW, not TSFW. Anyway, just a heads-up that vandalism is ongoing. Keep an eye out for it as the page history is a rather funny read typical of the topic.

Please - add examples

Even Shock Site have them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.80.245 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture

Should this include more references to pop culture? like when bronies use NSFW it can also mean 'not safe for woona' 203.123.101.194 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2]

[2] [ http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-a ]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 How about NSFL (Not Safe For Life)? I've seen it used from time to time and I guess would be similar to NLS and NMS. [[Special:Contributions/94.192.52.244|94.192.52.244]] ([[User talk:94.192.52.244|talk]]) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
+ I had always heard it as "Not Safe For Lunch" i.e. nauseating.
 == Some idiot has changed the article ==