Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Restricting language

In response to the recent banning of Jasca Ducato and Mike Kazz for fighting in the Wookieepedia:Wookieepedian of the Month page and using swear words in the process, I think that we should get down on users who act inappropriately by insulting other users and fighting.

It should be included in out Code of Conduct that the use of swear words against other users should be punished with a ban. Also, we should show respect for each other and our administrators. What do you think? MyNz 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Prohibit personal attacks and the use of vulgarities. That'll cover it. -Finlayson 16:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The Code of Conduct already covers personal attacks (which is what Jasca and Kazz were doing). I personally don't mind vulgarities, as long as they are not directed towards another person. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wookieepedia is not a place for cussing--especially against another wookieepedian. There should be a cusspedia. ;)

--DarthCow--Talk| Email 01:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

    • I think using language in and of itself is fine, as long as it isn't used against someone. That's when it becomes a problem. AdamwankenobiTalk to me! My home. 03:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I think offensive language shouldn't be used at all on a collaborative site like this. As for personal attacks, on Wikipedia everyone can remove them: Wikipedia:WP:RPA. - Sikon [Talk] 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Language here should probably adhere to the standards of our sources. Thus, "hell" and "damn" are probably acceptable, but worse language (other than, of course, "kriffing," "stang," "sithspawn," and so forth) shouldn't be. jSarek 07:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Agree with jSarek. Use only in minor context and in articles that demand real world comparions. After reading Odds today, I have found a new curse word: osik. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw, this only proves why I've disliked Kazz from the start. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should definitely limit profanity. We want this to be a resource for all Star Wars fans, and that includes kids. I can imagine quite a few parents would be upset if they found their kids on a Star Wars site featuring strong profanity. We want to present as good an image as possible while representing the Star Wars community. There's really no reason for having it. Havac 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with all of this. Profanity, while not necessarily offensive to me, is not appropriate for wookieepedia. - Breathesgelatin 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. Though the main reason I'm against using so-called "bad words" is that they're almost always used as part of a foolish flamewar of some sort, we should also realize that a lot of our editors/readers are going to be schoolchildren. The saga's rated PG or PG-13 at worst, so we should keep the language fairly clean. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • And I also agree. R4-P17 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • That was me, who forgot to logout of his bot-testing account. RMF 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I concur with this sentiment. I think a good basis for rule would be that if a questionable word hasn't been used in Star Wars, it probably shouldn't be used here.Basilisk 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone should make some sort of filter changing "the f-word" into fierfek and "S" into poodoo. —MarcK [talk] 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • According to Odds, as previously mentioned and written by Karen Traviss, osik is indeed replacable for poodoo or the s-word. I promote we use it instead if need be. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a right of speech should be infringed in a place where open thought and information is promoted. For people participating in the activities on this site, it isn't nessessary. If George Lucas can make a story where the worst words said are "hell", "damn", and "stupid", I think we can use our better judgements and control ourselves. I agree with this being a friendly co-op site. It isn't an appropriete form of expression to say the "f-word" or other 4 or 5 letter words. Excuse my spelling also, I lack a spell checker. Majorthomme 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Here here, seeing as my school's internet (wich I use most of the time) blocks any page with swearing. -- Doo Doo talk Jabba'sDesilijicClanTattoo-SWFF 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While this subject is about talk pages, I should mention that profanity isn't all bad, and should be used in articles when the context is appropriate. Specifically, in List of phrases and slang and the language articles, particularly Mando'a, profanity is needed to define certain words. Of course, that has no bearing on its use on talk pages, but just to point out that a general ban on profanity anywhere isn't really practical. - Lord Hydronium 09:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Those words can be defined without using their exact translations, just like their exact translations wouldn't be published in an actual Star Wars book. jSarek 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Our goal is to be encyclopedic. We should not censor if that reduces the accuracy of our articles. - Lord Hydronium 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Encylodedias use little or no bad language though. -Finlayson 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • My school compys block any sites that have any cussing on them. That would suck for me if I couldn't go to Wookieepedia from school any more.

--DarthCow--Talk| Email 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • In response to Finlayson: They do when it's appropriate in context. Just like unabridged dictionaries have definitions of profanity, and Wikipedia (although I know we're not Wikipedia) has several articles using profanity, as long as its purpose is necessary and for encylopedic purposes. See Wikipedia:Profanity. Some words in the articles I mentioned you simply cannot accurately define without profanity. Take "osik", as previously mentined. The definition of "osik" is not "the s-word", it's not "shoot", and it's not "crap". "Sh*t" doesn't work because not everyone may be familiar with that word (particuarly if they're not native English speakers), and thus it doesn't convey the proper information either. If we're to be truly encyclopedic and accurate, we must provide an accurate definition of "osik", and there is only one word that properly conveys its definition and its role in the language as strong profanity. Here's another article on the subject with views from all sides. - Lord Hydronium 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My point was Enclopedias have to be both accurate and professional. Profanity is used only when absolutely required such as what you describe above. I've written enough here.. -Finlayson 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, we're in agreement then. I'm not saying that we should have articles on "the f***ing Imperial Star Destroyer", just that it sometimes is necessary for encyclopedic purposes. - Lord Hydronium 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Osik: Strong Mando'a profanity describing excrement. What's so unclear about that? Why woudn't that be acceptable? Sh*t is just a shortcut that equates it with a specific English profanity. Relying on using the profanity seems sloppy and lazy in this case. Really, unless you're quoting Han Solo saying "son of a bitch" (actual BFC quote) where profanity is directly in the source, there's no compelling reason I can see for it. -- Havac 06:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Osik is proven to mean "shit" by the context of the clones in Odds using it: "Don't give me all that droids-have-rights osik." Btw, there is a little known Wikipedia article I find fascinating. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Just because it's used in the same sense doesn' mean it's simply the same word spelled differently. Again, show me a reason why it must be used. -- Havac 06:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Exactly, it doesn't have to be used. In meaning, it could be "crap" or another less-profane-than-the-S-word equivalent. The only difference between crap and sh*t is severity. There may be some times when profanity must be used in articles, but I don't think this is one of them. Besides, Triple Zero defines osik as "dung (impolite)"... YwingEmpress 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.