Talk:Archive:Family-Friendly Policy: Difference between revisions
imported>ZachPruckowski No edit summary |
imported>DavidGoodman (concurr) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Can this be rewritten without reference to a "notability" policy at all? I'm not sure we won't have such a policy, but frankly, a "family-friendly policy" page should use their lack of ''notability'' to explain why we might not have articles about porn stars. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:06, 14 November 2006 (CST) | Can this be rewritten without reference to a "notability" policy at all? I'm not sure we won't have such a policy, but frankly, a "family-friendly policy" page should use their lack of ''notability'' to explain why we might not have articles about porn stars. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:06, 14 November 2006 (CST) | ||
:What I'm trying to say is that an article should not be included if the only thing the subject is known for is something "non-family-friendly", but a topic simply having some non-FF parts does not exclude the whole thing (ie Marilyn Monroe). | :What I'm trying to say is that an article should not be included if the only thing the subject is known for is something "non-family-friendly", but a topic simply having some non-FF parts does not exclude the whole thing (ie Marilyn Monroe). | ||
::I've previously thought you a little too restrictive, but in practice I would support your distinctions.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 22:42, 14 November 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 23:42, 14 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)
Can this be rewritten without reference to a "notability" policy at all? I'm not sure we won't have such a policy, but frankly, a "family-friendly policy" page should use their lack of notability to explain why we might not have articles about porn stars. --Larry Sanger 00:06, 14 November 2006 (CST)
- What I'm trying to say is that an article should not be included if the only thing the subject is known for is something "non-family-friendly", but a topic simply having some non-FF parts does not exclude the whole thing (ie Marilyn Monroe).
- I've previously thought you a little too restrictive, but in practice I would support your distinctions.DavidGoodman 22:42, 14 November 2006 (CST)