Talk:Shit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Redirect to wiktionary?[change source]

This page contains useful information, especially because English learners will hear it often. They need to know its meaning and level of offensiveness. But this entry is like a definition of the word, with parts of speech, usage, and word origin. It is not a description of the thing (which is described under feces). Should it redirect instead to

The Simple English Wiktionary (shit)?
Wikipedia profanity, where similar important words link to Wiktionary?
Wikipedia feces, which is useful but does not give important information about the word itself?
A disambiguation article for feces (the stuff) and defecation (the process)?

MadeOfAtoms (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be crosswiki redirects. I think the best idea would be to redirect to Profanity. --Ferien (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say there shouldn't there be crosswiki redirects? The Profanity article redirects many words to Wiktionary, and those redirects seem to be useful. Very few newcomers or English learners will know to go to Wiktionary to look things up, but it would be very helpful for them to have a link, or hint to go there. Is there a talk page or technical discussion of this wider topic: linking between Wikipedia and Wiktionary and (non-simple) Wikipedia? I don't find it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. These questions are earnest, not argumentative. Thank you! MadeOfAtoms (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to redirect to anywhere. This article is perfectly fine and acceptable. --IWI (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word has encyclopedic notability in of itself, to clarify. --IWI (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you IWI. Then 'fuck' in particular should also have encyclopedic notability and deserve and earnest article; do you agree? MadeOfAtoms (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why crosswiki references are apparently discouraged, and where this guideline is visible, so all authors can know to follow it? MadeOfAtoms (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing a link with a redirect, I believe. Cross-wiki redirects are almost never used; cross-wiki links are sometimes used, but should be avoided in most cases. --IWI (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think crosswiki redirects (soft redirects) to Wiktionary are a good idea for words. That way we could make a bluelink for each word on this list: Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the words on this list are actually already linked to the Simple English Wiktionary. We generally don't have soft redirects in the mainspace. --Ferien (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been a supporter of Simple wiktionary, which is a different site to Engliah wiktionary. However, I'm bound to say it gets less used by editors than it was when I first came to Simple wiki. It has its own rules, and you have to put in a bit of time to learn how to format entries properly. Our version of wikt has its own admin to help (I have forgotten his handle). Is it ever used by our readers? Not often, I suspect. There are some here who think it is a waste of time, perhaps because they think many of our users don't bother to follow the link. So we have, over time, moved more and more to defining words on our own wiki. On the other hand, direct in-text cross-links to En wiki are definitely verboten. They evade our main function, which is to explain concepts in simple English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot: profanity is indeed one of our issues. We always need to remember that we are used by primary-school pupils (we don't know how many). We already have a number of pages which I think are far too explicit on sexual subjects, and you can put me on the list of people who would like to see more limitations to the content of these articles. Advocates have visited our wiki to push their agenda on controversial issues which many parents would think unsuitable for primary-school children. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is not censored applies here. Encyclopedias don't withhold information for fear of offending someone. In theory, anything could cause offence to someone in the world, even an objective fact. We want to avoid such a mindset, this is not simply an encyclopedia for children. --IWI (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The menu[change source]

The front of the Simple English Wikipedia says in quotes "The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone, such as children and adults who are learning English."

If this was for children, would we make them learn a profane term? Haritesdikales (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Bobherry Talk My Changes 14:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]