From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Fixing Dot com's post)
Line 294: Line 294:
Now, if you can sort through this, anyone with knowledge of HTML can see that something is wrong: a block level tag, &lt;p&gt;, is inside another block level tag, &lt;div&gt;.  This is not something I can simply overwrite; WikiMedia's code automatically installs a paragraph element.  I have discovered no way to remove it.  If it is truly irremovable, the only valid solution is to make an image of the warning label and upload it.  If, however, someone else knows how to rectify this, please do so.  I'd appreciate it greatly.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, if you can sort through this, anyone with knowledge of HTML can see that something is wrong: a block level tag, &lt;p&gt;, is inside another block level tag, &lt;div&gt;.  This is not something I can simply overwrite; WikiMedia's code automatically installs a paragraph element.  I have discovered no way to remove it.  If it is truly irremovable, the only valid solution is to make an image of the warning label and upload it.  If, however, someone else knows how to rectify this, please do so.  I'd appreciate it greatly.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:Well, I got it to validate, though the code is certainly sloppy.  However, I don't know how else to fix it, so it'll have to do.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:27, 29 June 2007

Offensive content Warning: This shouldn't surprise you, since the purpose of this talk page is to discuss an article about swears, but language that may be considered offensive by some readers follows. Only mature, professional handling of the subject matter will be allowed.



This information is only loosely related and really not that important.It's dot com 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has appeared quite a lot. I think it should stay. LePorello / T / C 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
yeah. if it had only 2 or 3 apperances, I'd under stand, but it has 8+ references. That's why I created it. — Young Roy 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it really doesn't have that many appearances, because none of these items are that similar, and a lot of them are just abbreviations and such.It's dot com 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of these are not cusses to most people, many are common everyday speech. AOnly a few, like the Commandoes, are really intentional uses of cussing for humor. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyday speech or not, it's still cussing. And only CitC and no loafing only mention about cussing, the rest have references to cussing. — Young Roy 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with deletion. This just isn't an outstanding topic... --DorianGray
I don't care for this page. Swears don't bother me, it's just that keeping track of specific words that characters say (unless it's a running gag; which swearing isn't) just doesn't fly with me. I could be contradicting myself, though. Maybe there are some articles that I would like deleted given this reasoning. Or then again, maybe not. Totally don't want a list of characters who use superlatives... or prepositions... —BazookaJoe 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I now think it's a worthy topic. TBC have stated that they don't put swearing on the site, except sometimes they do. This is notable. — It's dot com 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're gonna keep this

And now we're gonna censor this? We have a page where we can't even discuss the subject matter? — It's dot com 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point for deletion. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. If this page can't exist in an uncensored form on this wiki, then it doesn't belong at all. — It's dot com 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What's weird is that all the cuss words were censored except for "damn." Weird. — Young Roy 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Roy, it had hope, but I hope you see it's flawed. We can't have a page with the f word and the a word, per our standards. And if they are censored properly it ruins this. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, "Maq," so we can't have a and f up there, but it's ruined if it's censored. Hmmmm... God, I don't want my page that I made the first draft of, one of my few major contributions, so I guess we'll just have to...sigh. I don't know. It's just hard to decide. I guess we have no choice to delete it, unless we bend the rules and leave a and f or ruin it and go ahead and censor it. Young Roy (In a hurry so no time thingy thing.)
This page is kind of interesting, but I would only support an uncensored version. — It's dot com 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Com's right. This is data, and if it's on Homestar Runner, we can use it. — Seriously (Talk) 23:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're gonna keep this, it should not be censored, but it should be limited to material found only on H* (not the interviews (except for the relevant part in the introduction)). I have come to realize that this page has factual merit, given TBC's attitude expressed in the introduction. — It's dot com 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dot com, why'd you delete DorianGray's comment? That seems rude. — Seriously (Talk) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
He didn't. He just moved it. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
While I question the use of this article, I feel that censoring the profanities aren't needed. However, use of the word f*** was unneeded in the article. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm not entirely sold on the utility of this page, but if we're going to have it could we at least give it a name that doesn't sound so juvenile ("Mom, Billy made a swear!")? My vote is for Profanity. Concerning the above discussion, I'm against censoring this page. The warning at the top is ample. — InterruptorJones 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I moved it is because TBC in interviews have consistently used the word "swears" ("But when we get our sketch comedy show, dude, there’s going to be so many swears!"), and even in things like cheat talk. Plus, it's kinda funny. BTW, I think they only called it "cussing" in Commandos in the Classroom so they could make the "cuss-mando" joke. — It's dot com 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I still vote for keeping, uncensoring, and "Profanity". SaltyTalk! 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

While I feel that this should be delorted, if we are going to keep this, I would rather that the title be Profanity instead of Swears. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Meh, "Profanity" sounds so formal and stuffy. "Swears" fits the mood better, methinks. — It's dot com 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you don't really hear teens today using Profanity. Actually, it's more of "cursing." We should make the title that. Cursing sounds better than swears and cussing, and way better than Profanity. — Young Roy
Do you have something against the TBC term? If not, then we should leave the title like it is. — It's dot com 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm up for moving it to that. — Seriously (Talk) 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, but profanity sounds more encyclopedic. — Seriously (Talk) 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
But "swears" sounds more H*R. More examples: "Tomkins made a swear!", "Why I can even swear a cuss myself! A-hem. Diaper biscuits." — It's dot com 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point (and my bad for not noting the TBCism). Taking that into consideration, I'm fine with whatever everybody else decides. — InterruptorJones 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The title of this article is really embarrassing. Qduk 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just begin the article with "Profanity, or Swears... I think that would be good. — Seriously (Talk) 12:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the current introduction (in which Matt says "swears" and is followed up with "swearing") is just fine. — It's dot com 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay—I just think that the actual word should come before what TBC calls it. — Seriously (Talk) 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the place?

Since words like "Hella, and Helluva" are considered swears, I added the one where old timey Strong Bad says "oh noes i've died and gone to hell".

Not to be Correction Dan, but it's actually, Curses! iv'e died and gone to hell!" — Young Roy
Actually, it's not really considered a swear if used to refer to the place. I think. --DorianGray
I agree, used in the right context it shouldn't be considered a swear, except in the case of their using the context as an excuse to swear. Thunderbird 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Dorian is right. The place is not a swear. — It's dot com 04:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Guess if we can't use the place, we might not be able to use Strong Sad's curse in The House That Gave Sucky Treats: "...if you get it wrong, you get eternal damnation..." — Young Roy


What is that doing on the list? I know crap is almost like "s---" but crap is not a curse word all that much.

Actually, it is. It's what's known in linguistics as a permissible expletive (or something along those lines). — It's dot com 13:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible swearing in flashback

flashback- After losing the ten-step footrace, The Homestar Runner responds by saying "WHAAAAT??!!?&,:;%${}". Random symbols usually mean censored swearing.

Disagree. I know that things like %^#$^@# are used to censor swears, but it's not being used for that in this case.

Random symbols are used to censor words in the sentence. These symbols have been attatched to the ??!!?, with no space between them. This suggests that this is an exaggeration often used on the Internet of an overuse of exclamation points. I'm talking about things like !!!!!!!11111, !!!!!111!1!11one!!1, and !!!!!fortyfive!!11!1omgwtfbbq111. Using random characters after a long string of exclamation points and question marks is just a cousin to these.

Secondly, you don't see a hint of Homestar opening his mouth to utter curses in the animation. There's no audio censorship either. Where is the swearing coming from?

This is what I would consider acceptable to say that Homestar was swearing:

  • &,:;%${} WHAT??!!?
  • WHAT &,:;%${}??!!?
  • WHAT??!!?  &,:;%${}!!
  • WHAT??!!?  &,:;%${} (even though the final exclamation doesn't end in an exclamation point, I would accept it if there were a space in there.)

What we are considering is none of the above. Again, the random symbols are attached to the ??!!?. It makes no sense to put censored swears there. —BazookaJoe 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. (Args pending BazookaJoes args.) Switching to neutral for now. — It's dot com 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, not to disagree. I always took it like that. I mean, I think it should stay. SaltyTalk! 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed... Err, with the disagreement... By which I mean I disagree with the fact. It's obviously a relative of "T3H 1337 Sp33Kx0rz!!~!~@~!!#~!!1!!11@`2!eleventyfive!". --phlip TC 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with BazookaJoe. Disagree with the fact. Heimstern Läufer 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
don't know if my input matters, but i agree with the fact. --- Image:Videlectrix man.sig.gif Collin - (T/C) 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yearbook signing- rhts

In the Yearbook Character Page on the autograph signing part, strong bad says RHTS meaning "raise hell this summer" and since lmao is mentioned, does anyone else think this may have a place on the page?--- Image:Videlectrix man.sig.gif Collin - (T/C) 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be raise heck this Summer.

To do

Organize the list in chronological order and by toon category (SBEmails separate from toons and games). — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

sbemail: the bird

how about the sbemail "the bird" its all about giving the finger... which isnt really SAYING a swear. but it definatly is considered profanity and gets blurred out on TV. and it would go against TBC thing of keeping the site clean. Del Taco? 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. — It's dot com 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure on this one. It's a bit of a gray area. The email itself is about giving the finger, but Strong Bad never specifically mentions "the middle finger," so he's not giving kids any instruction on how to "give somebody the finger," and none of the characters in said email actually did it properly: Strong Bad can't do it because of his boxing gloves (even if he says he can), Homestar can't do it properly given his lack of (or at least invisible) hands, and Pom Pom only has one "finger" (his entire hand)... there's really no objectionable content in the email at all, save for the reference to "the finger" or "the bird," and I don't think, taken alone, such a reference constitutes anything objectionable. ~ Bruce 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Is this considered a swear? Or is it just a rude thing to say? It was said by The Baby Lady in Peasan't Quest if you ask her about Naked Ned. Maggot Man (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pervert's not really a swear... Just an insult, I think. --DorianGray
Well, it's a bad word kind of like Prick. --TheThin 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with you, The thing. It's a word with a cache, but not a "bad" word in the same category as your other example, which in some contexts is a "bad" word, as it names an unmentionable piece of anatomy. "Pervert" merely describes a person with socially unacceptable sexual principles and behaviors. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


  • I've noticed that there isn't a mention of autobiography on this page. Strong Bad doesn't actually say a swear word on the "Words I Probably Said" tape, but it is implied, as Strong Bad does have to fast-forward. Is it worth adding that to this page? Frickinsellout 09:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you refering to the "the Deke accidentally shoved me to the ground and called me a—" part? If so, I don't think we could really guess what he called him. He might as well said "a crap for brains" which is already covered under Crap. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to mention "butt"?

I hardly consider "butt" a swearword. I mean, 5-year-olds say "butt." I think we're only supporting the ridiculous existance of the euphemism treadmill here by mentioning a relatively non-offensive word in an article about swearwords. ~ Bruce 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do we say "butt"? --DorianGray
Under See Also:. In addition to the above, the words "crap" and "butt" both appear frequently. ~ Bruce 04:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah... Personally, I don't see a need to mention either of those, but I'm okay with keeping "crap" on there, as it has a (pretty massive) page. "Butt", on the other hand, is so minor a word it doesn't even need to be mentioned. You'd have to be some kinda freak to be offended by "butt". (No offense to anyone who is. You're still weird, though.) --DorianGray
Dorian, thanks so much for calling my grandmother a freak. My grandmother happens to be a very nice old lady. (This is a joke, I'm not really ticked off. ;-) ) But just so you know, I've observed that it is a bit of a generation thing: the older people are more likely to be offended by "butt" (and likewise with "crap" and "freaking"). That's my two cents. Heimstern Läufer 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that "butt" can be used in many different ways (the original meaning was "end"):
  • End/edge butt (something I learned in Tech Ed.)
  • Cigarrette butt
  • Rifle butt
  • Etc.
Anyways, we shouldn't mention "butt". ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Even though it is considered a bona fide swear at my aunt and uncle's house, I don't think it belongs on this page. — It's dot com 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. My grandparents have no problem with "butt." In fact, I've heard my grandmother use said word on many occasions. I honestly can't see how anyone would consider "butt" a swearword. It's just a synonym for "rear end," after all. And of course, you have things like butt joints, etc. ~ Bruce 01:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure what others' thoughts are on this, but I generally consider "sucks" a vulgar word; I'm not offended by it, but I was surprised by its presence in a couple places on the site, probably on roughly the same level as "hella." Should it also be mentioned? — LuigiHann (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (left unsigned)

I wouldn't consider it vulgar enough to be listed here or considered a swear. SaltyTalk! 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, the phrase used to be considered extremely vulgar, but over the years it has progressed on the dysphemism treadmill to the point that it is acceptable even in mainstream contexts. — It's dot com 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

alternate universe

Shouldn't we add the part where Strong bad says "flippin' off rainbows" from sbemail 150? (it's in the song) » c u t e p e t s r u s « T/C 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the swear? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If the bird is in this list, alternate universe should be too. Or they can both be removed; it's fine with me. —BazookaJoe 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it falls into the "implied" category. Sigh... (you can guess I'm not fond of it, but it is acceptable for the page). Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So... want me to add it?

Do you think it's better without Swearing except for Crap?

I do, because i sick of cartoons that aren't cartoons, if you get my meaning? Well? Nikolce Kocovski 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I get your meaning. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

well, what i'm trying to say is that cartoons are meant to be enjoyable for any age, not to filled with swearing,gore, etc. That's what i think. Nikolce Kocovski 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that a large part of the charm of H*R is that it's funny without resorting to typical devices other animated entertainments rely on for shock laughs, such as potty language and excessive violent imagery. That said, I don't necessarily feel that a cartoon (for example, South park) which does employ potty language and extreme violence in its humor is less good, just different. In other words, I see it less as an issue of quality an an issue of broadest audience. So it's not "better", but it's quite an accomplishment that the 12 year olds and the old geezers like me alike can enjoy this and not be subjected to imagery or dialogue which might be seen as inappropriate. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better because it's much easier to be "funny" with swearing. The fact that H*R can be at times, hillarious without vulgarity... to the extent of swearing or cursing... proves that TBC are very intelligent.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But that logic would suggest that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are not as intelligent, when in fact it's pretty clear from their work they're geniuses (as are TBC). They use a different set of rules and tools than TBC, so it's different, but does it necessarily mean TBC are more intelligent than TP+MS? It's like comparing apples and chainsaws, their approaches differ too vastly to effectively compare. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer this way of doing things, the without swearing way, because all it does is enable people of younger ages to enjoy the content. SaltyTalk! 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is about the upkeep of the wiki article. May I recommend our companion forum for discussion of the subject itself. — It's dot com 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While you are of course correct, I can also see an argument for exploring the utility of swears in animation as essential to the understanding of why both this page and its contents exist. Are the swears and swear-like items we document here to be seen as a deviation from the standards we've come to expect from TBC? Are they intentional references to the tradition in modern animation of employing naughty words for comic effect? Are they not references at all, but instances of the use of naughty words for comic effect? Yes, a generic discussion of whether SP or H*R is better because of the extent of the use of swearing is Forum fodder, but other points are, IMO, germane to the upkeep of this page. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel like I oughtn't, but since Qermaq opened the discussion loophole again briefly, I'll jump in. I hesitate at the first question there, Qermaq, which hints at the perennial has-H*R-jumped-the-shark questions that come up often and are almost always unanswerable and unnecessary. One interesting thing you hint at, though, is that the significance of this page is not the way they don't swear, but the way they represent, replace, or suggest swears. Which suggests questions of the history of doing so in other cartoon genres, like comic strips. Which gets back to Nik's starting supposition: although technically what defines a cartoon is that it's animated instead of filmed, you identify an assumption that they're intended for, or at least suitable for, kids. (And the previous two links could be taken as H*R weighing in with meta-commentary on its own role in these dynamics.) Which of course leads to the question of why we connect cartoons with kids—what about their origins, political cartoons, etc.—by which point it's definitely ready for the forum. —AbdiViklas 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Space Program

In space program, Strong Bad says "we spent all our money on this kick awesome logo". This could be a reference to kick ass, but, it's another one of those that might not really be nessicary to include. » c u t e p e t s r u s « T/C 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fo' Shizzle?

...Another one reads, "SB is the shizzle", which in this context means "Strong Bad is the shit".

I think that one's being read a bit too much into. We can't be sure of his context, he may have just thought "shizzle" is a funny word, and didn't realize it is sometimes attributed to profanity. In fact, Wikipedia gives the meaning of shizzle as "...rap slang word for 'sure'", which is also the general meaning that I have understood in the past. Though the context of "Strong Bad is the sure" admittedly does not make sense, it seems to me that this comment is simply an abstract comment of "Strong Bad is the shizzle" without the "meaning" of shizzle being obviously clear, if there in fact is one. In short, I think we're reading much too much into a word that doesn't have a specific meaning. Thunderbird 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See "Fo' shizzle" means "for sure", but any other use of "shizzle" means "shit". In this case "SB is the shizzle" makes sense, as calling someone "the shit" is an (admittedly weird) way of saying that they're good or cool. — It's dot com 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but my problem with it is other quotes such as "Curses! I've gone to Hell! How unfortunate!". In this context, that would mean "Curses! I've been damned! How unfortunate!". However since they didn't choose to use the swear word, it doesn't constitute a swear word any more than "freaking" or "dang". Thunderbird 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think they meant it. Even if they didn't, though, it's still notable that that's what it can mean. — It's dot com 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

TBC/Others Swearing?

Should this article cover TBC and other people connected to H*R swearing? TBC swore in a couple of interviews, and the end of the BOTS commentary is vulgar. Suggestions? ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 01:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think so. This article is about swearing and references to swearing on H* It's really not notable that they swear in real life, as (given their humor) they don't seem like the kind of people who wouldn't. — It's dot com 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we should include swears in commentaries. Those are still part of the H*R universe, even though they are somewhat removed. Loafing 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Part of the H*R body of work, perhaps, but not part of the H*R universe. ;) — It's dot com 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. They sometimes cross over though, when one of the characters suddenly joins in ;-)  Loafing 02:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Is "pissed off" a swear? I don't think so. It might be less than Grandma-and-Grandpa's-house etiquette, but that's not what defines a swear. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's listed as vulgar slang in most dictionaries. I don't know whether that actually answers your question. I would tend to think that it is a mild swear, given that it is censored on TV (more so in the past) and has a permissable form ("ticked off"). — It's dot com 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
According to, a swearword is vulgar or profane. Vulgarity is essentially lower-class speech (which is relative to your class); profanity is language that insults one's belief of what's right and wrong in the world (which is relative to your beliefs). BTW, "pissed off" is condidered "sometimes vulgar" by m-w. Of course, dictionaries merely chronicle usage, and as such should not be seen as prescriptive, so multiple sources should be consulted. It remains that "pissed off"'s swear-ness may or may not have a concensus among lexicographers. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"Pissed off" comes from the root "piss", which is unacceptable in any circumstance (at least for me). ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

trevor the vampire

Alright. I hate to challange one of the most-used examples of profanity on H*, but why do you guys automatically assume that Strong Bad was going to say "what the f**k"? He could have just as well said "what the freak", which would be covered under Freakin'. Peoples? ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I posed the same question long ago, either in talk someplace or in a edit summary. The response I got was that "freak" didn't make any sense. Wish I could find that conversation. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's entry on "WTF" says that "freak" is just as likely. Hmmm... ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait... nevermind. But it is still just as likely. ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing else makes as much sense as F*** (unless, maybe, it's some odd-spelling variant, like what my friends use. Fark, fawk, fook, and so forth). --DorianGray
In your opinion. Look at how many times Strong Bad has used the word "freakin'". Does the situation here merit that he would say "f**k"? ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Mu, first off, of course it's his opinion, this is a talk page. Second, while he has said "freak" a lot, he has never said it after "What the". What the crap, just plain what the, but never "What the freak". So "freak"'s suddenly no likelier than any other f word, after all. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I personally think that the KF'nC basket should be listed here, but I wanted to get other people's opinions first.

I think it's quite likely that the "f'n" stands for f***in'. After all, if it was KFreakinC or KFrigginC, TBC would most likely just call it KFreakinC... Raised by Coffee Image:Rbcsig.png AAaAaaAaaAAa 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't F stands for "fried"? Elcool (talk)(contribs) 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the F does stand for freakin', but KFreakinC doesn't look as good as KF'nC. To me it's too speculative. And yes F does stand for Fried. Kentucky Fried Chicken. -Jeppo (TLC) 21:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

British swears

Do we really need to censor the british word for male genetalia? In my experience it tends to be used at a similar (possibly slightly higher) level of profanity than crap, and is also mentioned in the article for sb email 22 -- DumbMuscle 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which word are you talking about, and where is it being censored? — It's dot com 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
He's talking about bullocks. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, censor was probably the wrong word, but the question still stands, dont really want to change this without at least some agreement to attempt to avoid any offence DumbMuscle 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not really censored anyway. All people have to do is hover their mouse over 'English slang term' and see 'Wikipedia:Bollocks' magically appear underneath their mouse pointer. I'm British, yet I'm not offended by the word. I've heard much worse. There's a warning on the top of the article anyway so I can't see why it should be 'censored'. -Jeppo (TLC) 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Screw All Y'all!"

Should we include that? because "Screw" is slang for "f**k" - Young Roy

Actually, both are slang for "copulate". But I don't think "screw" in this context rises to "swear" level. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree — it's too mild, and I think that "screw you" is used by plenty of people who aren't consciously substituting it for something else. Trey56 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, it just means mess them up. if Nintendo are allowed to give Samus a screw attack, this should be acceptable.


I understand many people think that Ass is a terrible word, but over here in the UK, it's hardly a swear at all. It's in the same boat as hell. Does this still count? --Gerkuman 17:54, 7 October 2006

As the Brothers Chaps aren't in the UK, yes. --DorianGray
Well, "ass" is hardly a swear on the level of many others on this side of the pond, either. "Asshole" is a pretty offensive word, though. "Smartass" and "horse's ass" - not so much swears as mild insults, but they do contain "ass", and as such are crude to many. Thing is, what's a swear to me might not be a swear to another person, it's a bit relative. Anyway, to address one point you made, if there's a difference between UK and US reasoning in any given case here, we normally default to the US thinking as H*R's a US-based website. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And yet, "Bugger" merits a PG rating in the UK, but it's G material here. --Jnelson09 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Think I found two more

In the email different town, Strong Sad says "Calm down, spaz!". Doesn't this shorten to "spastic", which is sometimes considered politically incorrect?

Also, in Shopping for Danger, Gunhaver says "screw with the weather!", which is a variant of f**k. Am I right? (I'm probably not, but meh) -Jimmy91 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone finding "spaz" insulting, and "screw with the weather" just means "mess the weather up weird". --DorianGray
"Spastic" might be insulting, but is not a swear. And "screw" is a more acceptable term than the one you allude to, so it's not a "variation" at even swearness. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit Conflict'd: "Spaz" is indeed short for "spastic" [1], but I don't think it's a swear. An indirect insult of disabled people probably, but not a swear. Loafing 20:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gunhaver could still have said "f**k with the weather", though, couldn't he? I mean, if H* was M-rated. It would mean the same thing. -Jimmy91 18:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Both would mean "mess the weather up weird", yes. --DorianGray

Homestar Talker on Second games Menu

On the Second Games Menu, the description for Homestar Talker is: "Homestar says the darndest things. You want to make him swear, don't you? Shame on you! Call your mother!" or something like that, but it mentions swearing. --Y. Roy 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Next time, feel free to go ahead and edit the article yourself. (If you're concerned about getting the formatting right, just do your best and someone will help you fix it.) — It's dot com 03:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I Swear That This Is Not What The Article Is About

I always assumed that the swears listed on the article are meant to be curses, not oaths. This would mean that "honest to God" should not be listed here. Loafing 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Trogga 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Sure, an oath is ONE definition of a Swear. But this article is about the curses used (or almost used) on H*R, profanity, not oath's. Perhaps this article would better be suited as "Curses" instead as it's title? --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Swears" is more the TBC term, though. See also Talk:Swears#Title. --DorianGray
What you call it is merely personal preference since it can mean more than one thing. But obviously what it DOES mean for this page is profanity type usage. Therefore, it doesn't change the fact that "honest to God" seems inapropriate for this page. So the page can remain as Swears, but maybe a disclaimer for what definition of it at the top of the page? Makes sense to me. --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "Honest to God" is not a swear the page's sense of the word. I'm removing it. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this thread. Since the phrase in question was literally a swear, I felt it deserved a hearing on the talk page before being removed. There does not need to be an additional disclaimer; this talk page does the job fine. — It's dot com 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there DOES need to be a disclaimer. Why? Because it would shoot down something immediately if it didn't meet the criteria the page is looking for. Let's say somebody else comes to the page wanting to put something on there that meets the definition of Swear, but the wrong one. Another oath or something similar. Now, MAYBE they'll see this on the talk page. Or MAYBE we'll have to go through another discussion on the talk page. OR! We could have this nice little message that tells you that this page is for Swears that meet this definition: etc. So they know right away that it's geared towards profanity. But what do I know? I'm just making total sense here. --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah. Consensus was reached here. If such oaths are posted, we can remove and point to this talk. No need to clutter the page, and everything's easily removable with adequate explanation. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly when was Consensus reached? When one person shot down the idea? Sure you count as two but I don't see how a single line (which is what the disclaimer would be) constitutes as "cluttering the page." I don't mean to make a big deal out of it, but I think it makes perfect sense.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The consensus reached that I was describing was that oaths need not appear on this article, not that a disclaimer is or is not necessary. My post was using the clear consensus on this talk that oaths don't belong here as an argument against needing a disclaimer, as we can simply refer to this consensus when reverting any oaths added. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what your saying now. I didn't before because of the finality in your statement. "Nah, Consensus was reached... end of discussion," is how I took it. I mean, the only arguement I made above yours was about the disclaimer. However, I still think it would save valuable time in some respects if that consensus was just right there in a single line on the page. I mean, then people already know. Or we can wait until they just post something that is an oath and say "That doesn't go there because it doesn't meet the right criteria --- read this" and post a link to this discussion, or however you decide to do it. I mean, if the disclaimer was there they'd already know. And if they did it anyway, just say "read disclaimer." I mean that IS what the page is about right? Profanity type swears. Gesturing included (such as giving the finger). --Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I tried moving this to "Vulgarism"

Why I did that is because I've never heard of such thing as a non-verbal swear, if the finger counts as one. --Y2K (15px-Crystal_Clear_app_xchat.png15px-Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png15px-Crystal_Clear_app_email.png) 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. Maybe Vulgarisms would be a good choice. Loafing 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This has already been discussed before. We have called it Swears because it's kinda funny and because it's a term TBC use themselves. Incidentally, if you really wanted to be a strict grammarian, "swear" is a verb but not a noun. Good thing we don't all the times have to be; I am all up ons leaving this article right where it is. — It's dot com 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A Strong Profanity?

Whats the "Strong Profanity" or whatever, that it talks about in the green box? --Jangles5150 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Look under Peasant's Quest. — It's dot com 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the warning

I think we need to switch back to the more official, less Homestar related warning. Yes, it's more boring, and yes, we ARE the Homestar Runner Wiki and it makes sense to have Homestar Runner themed templates, but this one seems more like an appearance or a joke than an official warning. Therefore, we'll probably get people (read: kids) reading it who aren't supposed to/don't want to. Bluebry 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

CANNOT be validated

I discovered that, on the page, the following code is present in the green alert box:

<div style="margin: 0 auto; background:#0C0; color:#FFF; padding:1em; width:500px; border:none; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:125%;line-height:160%;">THE FOLLOWING <span style="font-size:140%;">ARTICLE</span> HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR<br /> <p><span style="font-size:140%;"><i>CERTAIN</i> AUDIENCES</span> <br />BY SOME PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT'S BEST</span> <br /> IT BE RATED </p>

Now, if you can sort through this, anyone with knowledge of HTML can see that something is wrong: a block level tag, <p>, is inside another block level tag, <div>. This is not something I can simply overwrite; WikiMedia's code automatically installs a paragraph element. I have discovered no way to remove it. If it is truly irremovable, the only valid solution is to make an image of the warning label and upload it. If, however, someone else knows how to rectify this, please do so. I'd appreciate it greatly.· · T2|Things 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got it to validate, though the code is certainly sloppy. However, I don't know how else to fix it, so it'll have to do.· · T2|Things 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools