HRWiki talk:Swears

From Homestar Runner Wiki

What questions does this page need to answer?

Off the top of my head, I would say, (1) Do we want to continue to maintain separate censored/uncensored versions of pages? (2) If so, what words trigger the creation of a censored page? (3) What words trigger content warnings? (4) Do we want to use content warnings at all? (5) What words, if any, are not acceptable outside of articles (for example, on talk pages)? The organization of this page will probably be in flux for a bit until we can get a handle on the discussion, so bear with us. The name of this page might even change if someone has a better idea. Links to previous threads (or blockquotes) where this has come up are welcome. — It's dot com 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes. (2) That would require consensus. We will likely agree on a standard set of words, and argue vehemently on a small number of words, probably to exasperation. (3) That would require consensus. We will likely agree on a standard set of words, and argue vehemently on a small number of words, probably to exasperation. (4) Yes. (5) Same standards we apply to uncensored articles must apply to general talk. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Qermaq on all accounts. -- Super Martyo boing! 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What words are over the line?

A lot of the above questions hinge on some kind of determination on just which words are bad words. I would say that definitely on the "bad" side are (group 1) strong sexual language ("fuck" and its derivatives and descriptions of sexual organs or acts), excretory functions ("shit", "asshole", and other strong scatalogical language), and strong insults ("bitch", "bastard") or religious cursing ("goddamn"). Then there's (group 2) mild swearing (which is allowed on early-hour network TV): "damn", "hell", "ass", "piss"; and (group 3) euphemistic swearing "gosh", "crap", "darn", etc. I think that only group 1 words should be censored in articles. Group 2 words should be allowed to remain. In general, neither group 1 nor group 2 words should be allowed outside articles (e.g. on talk pages). — It's dot com 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Of course those words should be allowed on talk pages if they are quotes from the article and advance the discussion. Loafing 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but those would be the exception, not the rule. — It's dot com

I think those are great definitions — I very much like the division into the three groups, and I think you've corralled the words into their proper pens. And the Network TV thing is a good parallel. Trey56 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the groups idea. Group 3 is fine for everything on this wiki, considering the website it's about has most words in that category. -- Super Martyo boing! 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take. There are 3 different scenarios: (1) Transcripts of HomestarRunner.com and related releases (2) Transcripts of TBC and their interviewers (3) What we say. I firmly believe (1) should always be verbatim. (2) should be censored mildly, removing say groups 1 and 2. Then there's (3) in which no group 1 or 2 words should be allowed, unless we're discussing the above with the Warning Template in place.

Still, a slight quibble with the category definitions. Would "fuck" be equally objectionable in a statement like "I want to fuck Marzipan" as in a question like "What the fuck did they do to The Paper?" Leaving aside the fact that neither would be appropriate for an otherwise warning-less talk, isn't there a qualitative difference here? Should that be reflected, and if not, why? Also, what precisely differentiates "poop" from "shit"? That is not explicit. Dot Com laid out "excretory functions" as a parameter for group 1, but is it always? I can call him a "Poopsmith", but I cannot call him a "shit shoveler", regardless of the alliteration we all benefit from. That much is clear. The category definitions should lay out why. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally am more offended by "shit" than "poop", but I could see how others would devise that they have the exact same meaning, so are the same on the offense scale. If worse comes to worse, we still call him The Poopsmith, but we can refer to him as the feces shoveler if needed. -- Super Martyo boing! 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we HAVE to call him "The Poopsmith", that's his canon name. That's not in question, as far as I'm concerned. Still, do we agree by concensus that "shit" is worse than "poop" and by what criteria? I'd like to see us be a little better than random or roundabout with this. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)