Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22b7546efc590c0

Jump to content

Talk:UTFSF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Omegatron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


UTFSF - and you'll see that this acronym, however rude, has its use in modern language. Ironic, isn't it? Rklawton 05:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

- I agree with sentiment of the phrase "UTFSF," but it only gets 1450 google hits, which, to me, even as an inclusionist, makes it non-notable. However, perhaps I should have utfsf before posting it as straight off vandalism. Autopilots 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Second thought: perhaps it should be merged into, and redirect to RTFM Autopilots 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

UTFSF is more specific to computer information systems, whereas RTFM applies also to hard copy. However, I wouldn't oppose a merger. Rklawton 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding notability: the lack of Google hits concerned me as well. However, the international scope of these hits surprised me. For an English language phrase, UTFSF has been used in this context in a lot of languages. Rklawton 05:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dont see why these two acronyms should be merged - they have different meanings so they should have separate articles. Simple. --212.202.201.32 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, they don't. — Omegatron 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.