Talk:Archive:Family-Friendly Policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>ZachPruckowski No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Started page with the basics of "articles we don't want". That should let us exclude some of the worst offenders while retaining otherwise notable articles. More later --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 16:52, 12 November 2006 (CST) | Started page with the basics of "articles we don't want". That should let us exclude some of the worst offenders while retaining otherwise notable articles. More later --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 16:52, 12 November 2006 (CST) | ||
Just a few minor edits "off topic": we won't use the absurd "point of view" as an adjective for "biased," and I will need convincing that we will have a ''notability'' policy ''at all.'' The question is only whether it is feasible for us to have a full (and therefore fair) set of responsibly-managed articles on a given topic. Thus: feasibility policy. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:52, 12 November 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 21:52, 12 November 2006
Started page with the basics of "articles we don't want". That should let us exclude some of the worst offenders while retaining otherwise notable articles. More later --ZachPruckowski 16:52, 12 November 2006 (CST)
Just a few minor edits "off topic": we won't use the absurd "point of view" as an adjective for "biased," and I will need convincing that we will have a notability policy at all. The question is only whether it is feasible for us to have a full (and therefore fair) set of responsibly-managed articles on a given topic. Thus: feasibility policy. --Larry Sanger 20:52, 12 November 2006 (CST)