[003]
BURGINABC
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This never resolved, but three years later there still seems to be the same issue: this trope's definition doesn't clearly distinguish between minced oaths [[EnforcedTrope enforced]] by the writers to keep things G-rated, and minced oaths as a ''character trait'' in an otherwise uncensored work, where it's the ''individual in-universe character'', rather than the writers, the [[ExecutiveMeddling meddling executives]], or the MoralGuardians, that has an objection to strong profanity.
to:
This never resolved, but three years later there still seems to be the same issue: this trope\'s definition doesn\'t clearly distinguish between minced oaths [[EnforcedTrope enforced]] by the writers to keep things G-rated, and minced oaths as a \'\'character trait\'\' in an otherwise uncensored work, where it\'s the \'\'individual in-universe character\'\', rather than the writers, the [[ExecutiveMeddling meddling executives]], or the MoralGuardians, that has an objection to strong profanity.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
If minced-oath-as-characterization is covered by this trope, then the definition (both long-form and laconic) should be edited to reflect this. If it's ''not'' covered, then a new trope should be launched to cover it.
to:
If minced-oath-as-characterization is covered by this trope, then the definition (both long-form and laconic) should be edited to reflect this.
If it\'s \'\'not\'\' covered, then a new trope should be launched to cover it, because I\'m pretty sure it \'\'is\'\' an actual characterization device that many works use.
If it\'s \'\'not\'\' covered, then a new trope should be launched to cover it, because I\'m pretty sure it \'\'is\'\' an actual characterization device that many works use.