Talk:Crap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggest adding "Your Mothers Cooking" to page? --The Inedible Bulk 03:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good call--Bob Wier 20:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come now — no mention of Strong Bad? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:ACupOfCoffee, crap was his favorite word for quite some time.

Hey, who VfD'd this? Oh, crap, the Crap page is going to be deleted!

VfD'ed in Virginia

Contents

[edit] Did you shit yourself?

I would like to add this example instead of "Holy shit!" Bo tho contain the same amount of profanity, and one is a little funnier, and I don't see a problem with that. There is no advantage to saying "HOly shit" instead of my example, except that it might piss off Christians, is that the goal here? is that what Wikipedia is for, to piss of Christians? I didn't receive that impression from the guidelines, so I don't see why we have to piss off the Christians when my example works just as well... 70.171.59.231 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The original examples are better. Being humorous is not the point here. The new examples don't express the meaning of surprise, which the original examples are meant to. And I see no connection with Christianity. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the connection is the word "holy", but you're right about the surprise element. I'll add exclamation marks to my examples. Is this is still not acceptable, I welcome a better idea. 70.171.59.231 04:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "holy" doesn't have any special relationship with Christianity. Your examples make no sense. Paul August ☎ 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No sense? What does the question convey to you? Nothing at all? 70.171.59.231 05:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the sentence as you have modified it:
It is commonly used to express wonder or surprise where other words are too strong, as in "Did you crap yourself?!" instead of "Did you shit yourself?!"
It makes no sense, since "Did you crap yourself" is not a commonly used expression to indicate wonder or surprise. In fact "holy crap" is the only such expession I can think of, In which case the original sentence made no sense either. So I have decided to remove it altogether. Paul August ☎ 14:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Booooooooooo!!!! Boo on people who take out parts of articles for the sake of a grudge!!70.171.59.231 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No! No! No! 70.171.59.231 19:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I disagree completely with 70.171.59.231: 'holy shit' is a valid (and quite possibly the only) example of 'shit' being used as an exclamation; 'did you shit yourself?' completely fails in this regard, which is what the example was deonstrating. Wikipedia doesn't (or at least shouldn't - I don't speak for the establishment) censor perfectly good examples and information to avoid hypothetical offence to other groups. Seeing as you have failed to address Paul August's points (barring nonsensical or content-less responses), I'll revert it back. --Sam Pointon United FC 19:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
My ass I failed to respond! I responded with a question, "What does the sentence mean to you?", more or less. If the answer was anything other than "absolutely nothing", then obviously it's not devoid of content or sense. Since my comments were ignored by BOTH offending editors, I'm reverting it. Pretending I don't exist won't silence me, although feel free to leave bullying comments on my talk page as others have done. 70.171.59.231 23:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, ignoring my comments hear isn't going to discourage me... if you have a problem discuss here. I've made my case, and people who don't want it up have stopped discussing, instead resorting to reverts and telling me to just "give up". Fine, whatever, but I'm going to keep reverting. 70.171.59.231 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in my experience neither "Did you crap yourself?!" nor "Did you shit yourself?!" are common expressions. "Are you shitting me?" is, but there is no corresponding version substituting "crap".
You might want to take note that everyone but you agrees that "Did you crap yourself?!" is not a common expression, and give it up. Be a man about it. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're right. So I fixed so it doesn't say commonly anymore! 70.171.59.231 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. "Commonly" in the sentence refers to the use of the word "crap", not the use of the exlression "Did you crap yourself?!". The expression comes after "such as", so it has no grammatical link to "commonly". Good, disaster has been averted. If you insist however, I'll go back to the version without the word "commonly", or find a good way to seperate the sentences. And in the future, perhaps you can find a more persuasive way of "dealing with me" than questioning my masculinity; not all people are as vulnerable to sex/gender based insults from internet strangers as your average 13-year-old nerd. 70.171.59.231 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


How about we just leave the example out altogether? It's simultaneously not offensive, and also doesn't contain a dodgy example! Everyone wins. BTW, that "be a man" link specifically denies any sexual implications in the lead section, it's just a (genuine :P) commonly used phrase. Also, 70.171.59.231, can I point you towards WP:3RR? --Sam Pointon United FC 00:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh crap!! I did not know that! Now I feel very foolish :-( I guess I'll have to wait til tomorrow to fix it. I'd revert to the incorrect version just to be fair, but I might get banned for that, I don't know if it's an automatic thing or what. 70.171.59.231 00:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, fork it. i guess I'll just go eat worms. If you insist on letting this article stay in mediocrity, I'll re-edit it tomorrow to the lower quality version.  :-( I must admit defeat. 70.171.59.231 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 70.171.59.231 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 70.171.59.231 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, for political reasons, and for social reasons, in-so-far as it retains a civil and encyclopedic tone. I would suggest a number of alternatives for the example which are all acceptable exclamations, however all of these would be considered offensive to those of the Christian faith to some degree. The phrase 'Holy Crap' is, despite whatever opinions a religion may have, in fairly common use and must be included in the article. In addition, the original comment smells of trolling as well, such as by making batch accusations against the Wikipedia project over the views expressed by a select group in a select article. As such, Holy Crap will stay on the page, or I will revert and whine and cry until a massive flamewar occurs which lands on the table of MedCom or ArbCom. --Avillia 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But crap is the last name of an inventor

I was amazed that someone could argue over the word crap. But with humans, nothing is impossible I guess. Not going into the argument too much, I would like to remind Avillia that a civil and encyclopedic tone is by defenition non-offensive; so if it offends a group of people, it needs revisions, cause it's not civil nor is it encyclopedic, duh! Avillia, have you read the definition of encyclopedic civility? If not I suggest you look it up, cause now you sound kinda like, a dolt.

      User ABC

[edit] Profanity?

How is this profanity?Cameron Nedland 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you won't find it censored off any network television, but I wouldn't use it in any particularly formal setting. I think it qualifies as a light profanity. ~ Booyabazooka 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"one who is skilled at the art of crapping"? wha?? WalkUnseen 16:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Crapper

We need to determine where the Thomas Crapper myth section should be concentrated. The Crap article says "For a more detailed discussion of the myths, see the article on Thomas Crapper," while the Thomas Crapper article has a {{main|Crap}} flag. Both articles seem to point to each other as the primary source of this information ~ Booyabazooka 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I meant to write this in my edit summary, but I accidentally hit enter and submitted it early. I removed the picture of crap. This article is about the word, "crap", not about crap itself, so a picture of actual poo doesn't add anything to the article. ~ Booya Bazooka 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

   * crapola — synonym for "crap"
   * crappy — of poor quality
   * craptacular — a portmanteau of "crappy" and "spectacular"
   * craptastic — a portmanteau of "crappy" and "fantastic"
   * craptabulous — a portmanteau of "crappy" and "fabulous"

Are these neologisms? If any are, should they remain in the artcle? —Encephalon 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associação Popular Democrática Timorese at German Wiki

Ok. Sorry, I don't speak german, but I came to visit de.wikipedia, and clicked on "random article" (actually, I used [alt-x]), or "Zufälliger Artikel". So I came to this page. Funny enougth, this page has an title in the Portuguese language (I'm brazilian, so this is my first language), but the tittle is wrong. It should be Associação Popular Democrática Timorense, and not Associação Popular Democrática Timorese (you can check [1] if suspecious, or just google for it). note the lack of an 'n' in Timorense. Anyway, I'll try to move the page, but I think you can't do that without any edits in the particular wikipedia. Just letting you people know. algumacoisaqq

Olá, I had some problems to decide what is the right spelling:
But I think, you are right, because you are a native Portuguese speaker and the União Democrática Timorense is written with n, too. de:J. Patrick Fischer

[edit] This entire article is bullshit

Need I say more? AllStarZ 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/a/Talk%7ECrap_587b.html"