Q:

Are questions better if they contain the actual words they reference?

I just had this edit rejected, where someone was using the nonsensical syntax of "f***ing around" instead of "fucking around". Two of the three reviewers rejected the edit with the following rationale:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

How is using real spelling not making readability, and more importantly, findability? If you were looking for questions about alternatives to the various ways in which "fuck" can be used, you would want to find this question. But you won't, because without my edit, the word "fuck" doesn't even occur anywhere in it.

A:

While editing the body of the question does make sense, we are not allowed to have swearing in the title.
The title rule is covered here: What words are offensive in titles? What are the rules?
The discussion of offensive words, and including those words in the text of the discussion, has been acceptable here for a long while: Referencing the existence of words that may be offensive

