Talk:Lufsig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Pronunciations

To throw Lufsig at ｘ
Chinese掉ｘ路姆西
Jyutpingdiu6ｘlou6 mou5 sai1
To fuck ｘ's mother's cunt
Chinese屌ｘ老母屄
Jyutpingdiu2ｘlou5 mou5 hai1

I agree that the pronunciation box is too bulky to appear in the article. However, in my opinion, it is encyclopaedic and relevant. So I am putting it in the talk page to let interested readers know how close the pronunciations of the two phrases are. They only differ by tone in the first 2 words, and by consonant in the last word.--Jabo-er (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason I removed the box is because I don't want such an article to be off-limits to our younger readers, and I think adding it would be indelicate. None of the English language sources used in the article have the direct Chinese characters nor their pronunciations. However, therein is already sufficient detail why the name and how it relates to the actual profanity in Cantonese for its direct use to be obviated. I won't fight its reinsertion if that's what the consensus turns out to be. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the English language sources used contain the word 'cunt' either, but the c-word can still appear in the article. I hope our pure-hearted young readers won't mind reading the obscene word for the female genitalia. I do not propose or oppose reinsertion of the comparison box. Anyone who reads the article knows the translated name is close to a Cantonese profanity, and they can go to the talk page to see how close the two phrases are. Talking about quality of the article, I am less concerned about profane words than this section. Giving a green light to inclusion of this type of contents will eventually lower the overall quality, I am afraid. --Jabo-er (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but it appears as c*** in the Huffington blog. And I did consider reducing it back to the asterisked version but don't see the point. I might just remove "cunt" altogether because I think it's borderline gratuitous. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Huffington Post is censored, however
          WP:NOTCENSORED and avoiding the usage of the word. If people are offended by the word, they can start their own fork called Jesuspedia or something; it's none of our concern. The Chinese Wikipedia article isn't censored either, despite it being one of the most euphemism-reliant self-censored Wikipedia projects out there. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • If it's so plain obvious, then were back to gratuitous use of profanity... -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's think about this for a moment. Schoolchildren aren't supposed to be running free-willy around Wikipedia; we have parent guides which state this. We have articles such as Futanari which show girls with huge dicks that are much bigger than mine. Wikipedia has never been a safe site for children to visit, and this is something that isn't going to change any time soon. Parents have the responsibility of monitoring children's internet usage, and what children should and should not see does not fall within our responsibility. The idea that we could be potentially offending children by using a few naughty words is a bit silly, in my opinion. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not offended by the use of pron or profanity, but their use needs to be appropriate. The pornographic depiction in your above example is indeed appropriate, for it wouldn't be possible to demonstrate the concept properly without it. It's hardly the same for "mom's c***" or "f*** your mother", even without the context, verbatim from the sources. You've already said "it's a no-brainer as to exactly what word the source is referring to", so that begs the question why we need to be graphical when none of the sources bother to spell out the words. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to the Games section, you might be right. I deleted some linkspam from there earlier, but I'm prepared to let that section develop for a while and see where it goes. As that 'orrible tabloid is the only source, that may be justification enough to remove it if no other sources turn up. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is personally the stupidest edit war I've ever seen. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It takes two to war. And I guess that means it takes two to be stupid. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

WP:Offensive material says "In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps our style guidelines." However, we are not just citing sources that are self-censoring with asterisks, some are just using workarounds (i.e. for instance, an offensive term referring to female genitalia). It is clear what the words are, and they also provide context in relation to the Cantonese profanity page, which provide further explanations on how people came to the conclusion that IKEA China really dropped the bomb in the transliteration department. What we are quoting is factual information, and not a specific quote from a person, so the latter does not apply. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also really not our job to cover un-supervising bad parents. Wikipedia will not be contributing to the demise of the
family unit - we just don't have that kind of power... Dinkytown talk 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I actually just did find a source (specifically
That's Shanghai) which uses the translations without censorship. Once we get this unprotected, we can also fix up the mixup we have listed. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You trawl around far enough and wide enough, and you're bound to find one that does. Fact is all mainstream English sources have the delicatesse to avoid brazen and gratuitous profanity. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We operate on consensus, not
your opinion and your opinion only; you seem to be the only one arguing for their non-inclusion, and judging by your remarks earlier (i.e. your objections to my improvements to the article and speaking like its your personal property), you seem to be asserting ownership on the article. There appears to be a consensus towards their inclusion. I still think it should be there, primarily so we can provide the correct context and reasoning on why people thought this was funny. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We operate on consensus, not
your opinion. You came in from nowhere, with your undiscussed "improvements", where an amount of useful encyclopaedic information was removed in a thoroughly non-transparent edit, and you lecture me on consensus... A bit rich, methinks. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
ViperSnake151 - If you have the exact quote(s) and source, then I vote to put it in. Ohconfucius - Depending on the contexts, calling someone a "fag" in the middle school that I teach, will get you suspended for the day (gender-preference derogatory word), while "fuck" will get you a simple reprimand, or worse. While your statement; "And it doesn't mean go whip your mother's herd of mammals that go "moo", if you get my drift. ;-)" makes absolutely no sense to me, proves my point of English has many unknown meaning of phrases even amongst it's native speakers... Dinkytown talk 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese pun on the main page?

Dear English Wikipedians, If you want to direct people's attention to a vulgar Cantonese pun, please make sure it is correct in the article before the link to the article goes onto the main page. The Lufsig article is so messed up. "throw Lufsig" is 丟路姆西, "fuck your mother's cunt" should be 屌你老母閪, not the other way round. 路姆西 is pronounced as Lo Mo Sai, but 老母閪 should be pronounced as Lo Mo Hai, not Sai. The article is even protected before anyone can fix it. So lame! --74.12.83.157 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post source (cited by Time) uses Lo Mo Sai. Do any of our sources have that? ViperSnake151  Talk  06:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about the Chinese characters, which as of present, are the wrong way around. The full-protected article currently states that "throw Lufsig" is 丟老母閪, but "老母閪" means "old mother's cunt", and not Lufsig (which is 路姆西). As for the second part, I'd like to point out that per here, 西 (sai) is an euphemism for 屄/閪 (hai; cunt). --benlisquareT•C•E 06:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry about that. I added the editprotected mainly so someone would fix that. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the instruction isn't specific enough for easy parsing. need to clearly state <unique original string> and <replacement string>. best if chinese characters removed altogether if these are not in any English sources. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have to agree with Ohconfucius there - I had to read this section about six times before deciding what change needed making. Hopefully this is the right one - if anything else needs editing, please make another protected edit request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for pages that appear on the Main Page, you will usually get a quicker response by posting at
WP:ERRORS. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lufsig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lufsig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Lufsig/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review MWright96 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (
    focused
    )    :
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

Development

Symbolism in Hong Kong

  • "sparked a pro-democracy movement " - brought about a
  • "Critics of Leung have nicknamed him" - can also be Leung's critics for reasons of conciseness
  • alluding to his alleged cunningness," - perceived is a more neutral word to use instead
  • Wikilink pun on the first instance not the second instance of its mention
  • "The popularity soon extended to mainland China (where 11 of the 14 IKEA stores sold out)," - the parentheses are unneeded and can be replaced by commas
  • "and even to Canada" - drop the word "even"
  • "A Lufsig Facebook page amassed over 45,000 likes," - this source from CNN states it is 50,000 likes and it would be preferable to use since it is more up to date
  • "Leung himself posted a picture of himself with a Lufsig he bought for his daughter," - how about mention that it was a Christmas present?

References

  • References 3, 8, 9 are lacking the dates the respective sources were published
  • References 5, 6, 13 and 14 should include the dates the references were accessed
  • Reference 6 is dead and will require an archive link
  • References 8, 11, 12, 16 will benefit from the inclusion of the source's respective authors
  • Reference 15 is missing the work parameter of the source and will need to be archived because it is dead

Overall the main issues concern the fact that there some issues with the prose and there are portions of the article not explicitly verified by the sources that can easily be rectified. There are some sources that are dead but can be archived and some lack the basic parameters such as the name of the author(s), name of the work, publication date and access date. On hold. MWright96 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on it over the next few days. feminist (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWright96: Thank you for taking the time to work on the review. I have addressed the issues you've raised here. Please take a look to see if you have any other concerns. feminist (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: Now promoting to GA class. Note I've made two changes to the article. MWright96 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lufsig&oldid=1203789774"