Talk:Minced oaths in media

Rationale

Much of this article appeared in its parent article Minced Oath, but was apparently considered offensive and stripped out without discussion.

The article is not intended to be offensive. Rather it is designed to form a record of literary, dramatic, and other artistic references. It is not meant to be a repository of what your cousin Ted said.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did a general cleanup of this article, however Unicorn Tapestry reverted the edits saying that they did not make sense. I have reinstated the edits and provided an explanation of why each is required below:

1. Removal of hatnote - Hatnotes should not disambiguate article names that are not ambiguous. Template:Main is intended for use at the top of sections in the parent article to full articles on the subtopic, not the other way around.
2. Removal of article-long section heading - The body of an entire article should never fall under one section heading. That is what titles are for.
3. Switch level of section headings - If there is no second-level section heading in which a third-level section heading is located, it should be switched to a second-level section heading.
4. Rewording of "Literature" section heading - This entire article is about literature; it does not make sense to have a section called "literature" because it does not distinguish the section from any of the others. As that section pertains to novels, "Novels" should be its name.
5. Rewording of "Graphic Novels/Comic Books" section heading - Like article titles, section headings should not rephrase themselves. For this reason, the section called "Graphic Novels/Comic Books" should only be called one or the other. As the section is not a subsection of the "Novels" section, the latter name is preferable.
6. Rewording of "Theater" section heading - This is an article about literature. "Drama" is the literary term, "Theater" is the performing arts term. The former is naturally more suited to this article. Neelix (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have good points buy waaaay overreached. I'm working to meet an editorial deadline, but let's discuss after I get it out of the way. Thanks.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cable

Marvel Character Cable used Flonq (and Flonqing) in the 1990 "Cable"-comicbook. Psilorder (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Douglas Adam and his "Hitchiker's" series is pretty famous/notable (42!!). Anyways, here's the stuff --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarquon#ZarquonOccamsrazorwit (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense here

Sorry to be so harsh, but this article doesn't make a lot of sense. Does TV censorship (i.e. overdubbing the swear words) really fall in the same category as deliberate word-mincing in the source material ? Seems to me, those are two different phenomena. And as for the show "Red Dwarf": they use the word "git" a lot, actually. "Goit" does not replace it, as the article claims (they use both). And finally: when did TV shows become literature ? Sure, I could rewrite the article but it's more tempting to just delete it altogether.76.113.25.252 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, a chiz (note speling) is a swiz or swindle as any fule kno. nigel molesworth would be turning in his grave, assuming he’s dead. Mr Larrington (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Iterated minced oaths?

Are there examples of the minced oath version becoming so offensive itself that it gets minced again to avoid that? I'm thinking of "bullshit" becoming "BS" becoming "Barbra Streisand". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.64.222 (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)