Talk:Priapus: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer (added {{speedydelete}}) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::Given that it is currently unlinked and, in its current manifestation does not meet the family-friendly criterion, why not just delete it for now? It's short anyway and could be recreated without too much trouble.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | :::Given that it is currently unlinked and, in its current manifestation does not meet the family-friendly criterion, why not just delete it for now? It's short anyway and could be recreated without too much trouble.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Surely, I think, we'll be able to edit an article about a topic in Classics so as to be consistent with a robust interpretation of our family-friendliness policy. Surely we won't be deleting all articles regarding sex organs and fertility gods; we'll just be writing them in a way so that most parents will feel reasonably comfortable with their children viewing them. Perhaps it's a lost art, like the use of euphemisms? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 22:29, 4 April 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Classics Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Pat Palmer 20:44, 4 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Family-friendly?
I don't want to sound like an anti-bonking old fuddy-duddy, but I understand CZ has a 'family-friendly' policy so we have to self-censor to filter out the details... perhaps this could be rewritten to reflect that? John Stephenson 01:59, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
- Fair enough, I removed the part on him anally raping trespassers in his garden. I think that should do it, though admittedly the article is "PG-13" (but how could it not be?) --Rob Glass 11:05, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
- You could say 'sodomised'. Or maybe that's just as bad? John Stephenson 20:15, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
- Given that it is currently unlinked and, in its current manifestation does not meet the family-friendly criterion, why not just delete it for now? It's short anyway and could be recreated without too much trouble.Pat Palmer 20:53, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Surely, I think, we'll be able to edit an article about a topic in Classics so as to be consistent with a robust interpretation of our family-friendliness policy. Surely we won't be deleting all articles regarding sex organs and fertility gods; we'll just be writing them in a way so that most parents will feel reasonably comfortable with their children viewing them. Perhaps it's a lost art, like the use of euphemisms? --Larry Sanger 23:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
- Classics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Classics Advanced Articles
- Classics Nonstub Articles
- Classics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Classics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Classics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Classics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Classics External Articles
- Classics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Classics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup