Editing SmashWiki talk:What SmashWiki is not
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
:::::"Sex kick" absolutely doesn't have the same level of offensiveness as "rapetent", so I'm not sure how you're even making that comparison (one's an innuendo and one's directly equating something to a harsh sexual act). | :::::"Sex kick" absolutely doesn't have the same level of offensiveness as "rapetent", so I'm not sure how you're even making that comparison (one's an innuendo and one's directly equating something to a harsh sexual act). | ||
::::::"''or what if we were having this conversation ten years ago when "rapetent" was much more widely used?''" | ::::::"''or what if we were having this conversation ten years ago when "rapetent" was much more widely used?''" | ||
:::::If we assume that this discussion was had ten years ago, with the rest of the timeline remaining the same (i.e., the events of July 2020 still happen in July of 2020 rather than 2010), then yes, it'd probably | :::::If we assume that this discussion was had ten years ago, with the rest of the timeline remaining the same (i.e., the events of July 2020 still happen in July of 2020 rather than 2010), then yes, it'd probably a different story, but that was then, and this is now. | ||
::::::"''Is the threshold for notability going to be much higher for vulgar content, and is SmashWiki going to be okay with replacing otherwise adequate encyclopedic content just because it's offensive?''" | ::::::"''Is the threshold for notability going to be much higher for vulgar content, and is SmashWiki going to be okay with replacing otherwise adequate encyclopedic content just because it's offensive?''" | ||
:::::The point is that this term has been phased out by the community and is extremely vulgar—the two are not mutually exclusive. I'd hope that the community would continue this line of thinking with other offensive terms or terms relating to offensive people so that we don't ''have'' to have a separate threshold for notability relating to vulgar content, but in the grand scheme of things, no, that threshold wouldn't change. However, I fail to see how truly offensive content (as in, quite literally using the word "rape" as opposed to retaining the name of the person behind the ESRB leak, [[ESRB leak|which we already do]]) can be even remotely qualified as "encyclopedic". | :::::The point is that this term has been phased out by the community and is extremely vulgar—the two are not mutually exclusive. I'd hope that the community would continue this line of thinking with other offensive terms or terms relating to offensive people so that we don't ''have'' to have a separate threshold for notability relating to vulgar content, but in the grand scheme of things, no, that threshold wouldn't change. However, I fail to see how truly offensive content (as in, quite literally using the word "rape" as opposed to retaining the name of the person behind the ESRB leak, [[ESRB leak|which we already do]]) can be even remotely qualified as "encyclopedic". | ||