Talk:Priapus: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer (added {{speedydelete}}) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
==Family-friendly?== | ==Family-friendly?== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 8: | ||
:::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) | |||
I just hope that there isn't some sort of problem with the image in the article (as far as image policy, I think it's ok; I mean what it shows). --[[User:José Leonardo Andrade|José Leonardo Andrade]] 13:19, 7 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:52, 13 November 2007
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)
I just hope that there isn't some sort of problem with the image in the article (as far as image policy, I think it's ok; I mean what it shows). --José Leonardo Andrade 13:19, 7 April 2007 (CDT)