Yes, but not for trusted users the 'old hands'
This ban should only be implemented for new users.
I suggest that users with the Established User Close/Reopen privilege should not be limited, in the event that there is a legitimate question to be asked with any of the above words. (Thanks for the suggestion, @tchrist)
These users are already having a vote ...
No, we should not adopt this proposal!
Vote this answer up if you think the proposal should not be adopted. If you disagree, upvote the corresponding aye-answer.
(Feel free to add your own answer if you have improvements that would make the proposal acceptable to you.)
Yes, with proper scrutiny
There should be a new meta post in which (an updated version of) the list of banned words is posted as an answer, for everyone to see.
That post should have a separate community-wiki answer where users can propose new words to be added to and removed from the list.
The reason for this is that some words may well be part of a ...
The original title by the OP was ungrammatical and pointless.
JonMarkPerry's edited title was grammatical but not as specific as it could be. No-one should have been answering based on the title alone, and the question body made it clear that the question was more specific than the title made it appear.
Your revised title was more specific, and in keeping ...
The title has to be “radio-friendly”.¹ Potentially offensive words shall be censored in the titles, but can be explicit in the bodies and comments.²
The rule applies to every site on the Stack Exchange network, regardless of whether the question is currently a hot network question. It can be found expressed in various ways as part of answers and comments on ...
Titles, but not post bodies or tags, must be censored for profanity because they may appear on other sites on the Stack Exchange network where users are not expecting to see profanity in any form. It is not necessary to censor profanity in post bodies or tags if it is a legitimate discussion of said profanity, but using profanity for profanity's sake is not ...
There are some problems with this proposal.
One is that this is a website about English Language & Usage, so every word we outright ban is going to be a word that can not be used in the title of a hypothetically legitimate question about the word. It'd be hard to talk about the origin, usage or orthography of plz if it's removed altogether. Sure, that ...
Jeff Attwood's answer (as lank to by sumelic) is the definitive answer. There is no profanity allowed in question titles.
If you see a question with a swearword, etc., in the title please edit the title. Either censor the words, e.g. change fuck to f***, or reword the title so that it doesn't require such a word.
As you've had only one edit suggestion rejected, it's not difficult to find the question referred to and the details of the rejected edit.
Your proposed amendment was to change:
Is there a word for someone who really has their act together
Is there a word for someone who really has his/her act together ?
You will see that it was rejected ...
This is certainly a red flag, since very short questions tend to be bad questions. However, rather than editing the post in that case, simply flag it to be closed or downvote it.
However, some questions are legitimately short. Those you can leave alone. There's nothing inherently wrong with repeating the title in the body, so if the question is otherwise ...
Yes, but we should commit to reviewing policy effects in a few months.
In general, I agree with the urgency of the issue. When a significant portion of questions are moderated, we should look for tools that increase the quality of questions. Yet, I see a few potential issues that we should commit to examining a few months after implementation:
Unfortunately, it is not very well documented. The reason I believe there is such a policy is because of previous meta posts, and the continuing actions of site moderators. An important point that I forgot to mention is that the policy was originally network-wide, top-down rather than something that was created by the users of this site.
Here are the ...
Yes, we should adopt this proposal!
Vote this answer up to say that you think the proposal has merit and should be adopted. You can vote it down to say that you don’t think so, or you can vote up the corresponding nay-answer.
You should also feel free to add your own answer if you would like to fine-tune the proposal.
I think you had the right idea in using underscores to create a blank space. Using a question mark as a placeholder for the missing word in a question would look strange and create ambiguity:
Jack and ?
is more confusing than:
Jack and ____?
because in the first case the question mark is playing two separate roles. That said, it would be nice if you ...
Why is it, that those words tend to be found in unsuitable questions? Does anybody know?
Is it because the person asking tupically ‘needs help or has a problem’ (that seems to be the main theme)?
...Does that then indicate questions that are ‘please help me with my homework?’ Or are from people whose literacy currently happens to be at a level which means ...
I saw that the title to this question had been edited, with an explanation of "this now appears on the hot list."
As pointed out by NVZ in a comment on my previous attempt to answer, the user who proposed the edit is relatively inexperienced on ELU but much more active on other stacks. It is therefore likely that they first saw it on HNQ, and so their ...
Have you tried using U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE instead of the regular space?
I often have to use the various Unicode spaces on StackExchange to get things to behave properly. For example, here are all the code points that Unicode considers whitespace:
U+0009 CHARACTER TABULATION
U+000A LINE FEED (LF)
U+000B LINE TABULATION
U+000C FORM FEED (FF)
The idea is somewhat like emails. Should the subject of an email be repeated in an email?
I don't think an exact copy should occur, that is stylistically annoying, but I do think there should be some repetition of the concept.
Very often a person will write something in the title, then in the contents go in a completely different direction. What results is ...
We should discourage repeating the body in the title. A title is not merely the first sentence of the body. It's something else altogether.
For example, the title of this question really should have been Repeating the Title in the Body do it the way people set the titles of books and movies in English (let’s call this titlecase), or else Repeating the ...
What you say about altering the OP's original intent doesn't apply to question's titles, as long as the title is pertinent with the question. For example, we are required to avoid writing some words in the question's titles; if you change the title to use c*nt, you are not altering the meaning of the question.
Changing the title to avoid it is equal to the ...