Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Curse words

I've noticed recently on different talk pages (click here for example) that people have cursed pretty bad words in conversation, so, I was thinking that we should have a censored template to put on words like: the B words, and the F and S words, since there are younger users on here (adults too) who shouldn't see trashy language. Thoughts? Brain40 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think we should have a strong policy against that type of thing, but I haven't seen any really bad language myself. Could you provide a link? - Angel BlueHolocron negwt(Holonet) 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In general, censorship = bad. But if people are using the language against other users, that's when it becomes a problem. Adamwankenobi 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a link above: (bold faced "here") Brain40
      • There are also other curse words on Ugluk's talk page as well. Brain40 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, we are on thin ice talking about censoring user's talk pages. - Angel BlueHolocron negwt(Holonet) 23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Good point, but, I'm just making a suggestion. Brain40 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I generally don't see a need to excise it, but I don't see much of a reson to use it, either. The use of profanity on talk pages is generally in the context of arguments and heated debate, which it doesn't help and which isn't something that most people really want to see. It doesn't make the wiki look good. Profanity in articles isn't something I support; it's just not very encyclopedic or professional (unless, of course, it comes directly from the sources). I'd suggest users simply not swearing. There's no need and it's unprofessional and reflects poorly on the community. Havac 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're probably right. Brain40 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Im 11 and i really dont mind at all. Except when they use bad language against other users. However I do think that it makes us look bad if we use it too much. Roron Corobb 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • As I've always said, it's the meaning and context that need to be watched. Anybody familiar with George Carlin? ;) Adamwankenobi 01:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Carlin is a language god. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not like foul language at all. Except for the occasional quote on an article- i.e. Wedge Antilles, Ganner Rhysode, we shouldn't use it. I usually try and encourage people to discuss their differences in a civil tone on the Internet, and some users have a tendency to enter . . . aggressive negotiations. While I think everyone should strongly be encouraged to keep it profanity-free, I think it's excessive to get onto a user and say "Now editor, Mommy Wookieepedia says you can't say that and that's very very naughty of you." I'm being facetious, but placing a "censorship template" doesn't address the root of the problem- why are we using directing profanity at one another? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you I hear enough of it in public let alone the internet unless like what Atarumaster88 said with a quote from a character. I would like anyone editing a article that there are curse words on unless it is a quote from a character. I want to clean up this wiki for the younger users. Thank you. Delta oh-seven.

You're welcome. Brain40 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm curious what people mean by inappropriate profanity in articles. The only instances I know where profanity even exists on the article pages are quotes (where it's necessary for accuracy), and definitions of Star Wars profanity (where it's necessary for meaning). Any other use would be in a slang context, and should be removed, not because it's profanity, but because it's not an encyclopedic tone. However, in the cases I mentioned it's essential to keep. A ban on profanity just because it's profanity in articles (mind, I'm not discussing talk pages) is a bad idea. If it's not an encyclopedic or formal tone (which out-of-context profanity, by its nature, wouldn't be), it should be removed regardless. - Lord Hydronium 07:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, what does this mean? I don't remember any instances where an article has contained profanity (except in cases of vandalism). I'm racking my brain just to imagine an article that would contain profanity. Darth Vader was a f*#%ing awesome Sith Lord that continually #%%^ on his unworthy opponents? Of course that's not going to be allowed as it's unprofessional, and obviously well...stupid. Isn't it kind of a given that profanity won't be in articles? As for talk pages, who cares what people write on there (unless it's insulting or flaming other users)? It's their personal choice, and correct me if I'm wrong, but people visit the site to look at articles not talk pages. Finally, what exactly are you suggesting we do? What policy do we need to change? We already remove insulting content and material and delete offensive vandalism. In case you didn't notice, porn is also occasionally added to this site by vandals and disruptive users. I find that much worse than the occasional cursing tirade, but we adopt the same course of action for both, so what is the problem here? Cull Tremayne 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • We could just simply limit curse words uses. For example, if it's used as an insult then it should be faded out, if its used in another term, e.g. "That was absolutely f**king brilliant" then i think that should be ok. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 08:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I think Brain40 is talking about "talk pages." It's rather obvious that we shouldn't have "Darth Vader opened a can of whup-*** on those ******* Jedi. It's also obvious that vandals are idiots. I've seen some lovely spouts of profanity between users and I think Brain40 is referring to those bursts of invective. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 15:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the use of profanity in articles to define Star Wars profanity, which is the main in-article use I can think of. I think it's sloppy, because we don't know, for example, that osik means "shit". It's used in constructions similar to those in which "shit" is used in real life, but that doesn't mean we can say, "osik means shit." It may not have the same strength to it, being more analogous to "crap". We don't know. Same with "kriff". It's naughty, and fans strongly identify it with "fuck", but we don't really know that it's a reference to sex. And of course, "kark" is pretty much a total mystery. Havac 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Havac, that's speculation, I'll remove it now. Anyway, I refuse to be censored, we do have freedom of speech, don't we? --Imp 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the idea is that our speech should fall within Wookieepedia:Civility. Aside from that, I don't see anything else of significance here beyond the speculation. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • We have freedom of speech from government interference. Non-government entities may still restrict speech in their areas of authority as they see fit. jSarek 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • "I think the idea is that our speech should fall within Wookieepedia:Civility." Exactly. And does anyone else have the urge to add: "Diplomacy means saying something soothing as you squeeze the trigger, right?" as the quote at the top of that page? Havac 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm all for free speech, but what Atarumaster said is true, and in my opinion: we all have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean people should curse, since there is enough on T.V., and in just regular conversation, so, I'm not saying censor stuff, but at least warn people who curse a lot around here. Brain40 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeap, the user who direct such words against another user should be warned immediately. You can have a discussion without using inappropriate language. Unfortunately, some people may find these words most offending. But on the other hand, I think it's a question about how used we're to everyday-language including curse words. Regardless, I think the most of us have a limit regarding these things. Lorth NeedaStriptease 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Havac on one thing- I like the quote "Diplomacy is saying something soothing as you squeeze the trigger, right?" On the larger issue here, I think as long as we are nice and polite to each other, even in disagreements, then the only people who will actually see the need to use foul language are vandals . . . and while God cares about them, I don't when it comes to the wiki. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 06:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a lie. God hates vandals. Havac 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuck, man, just fuck. <--- My two cents. --Master Starkeiller 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion, if your gonna swear, maybe you should use a Star War equivalent, like kriff. RushinSundaws 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      •, that's just lame. Cursing aint nice, but you just look stupid if you're going to go around going "kriffing spast sithspawn". Sorry, stupider. .... 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)