Talk:Archive:Family-Friendly Policy: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris day (What is feasible from the perspective of CZ?) |
imported>Chris day (sign) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: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). {{User|ZachPruckowski}} | :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). {{User|ZachPruckowski}} | ||
::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) | ::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) | ||
:::I'm still trying to figure out the scope of CZ here. I read in one of the e-mails, or on the forum, an argument along the lines of "there is no good reason to have articles on TV shows, movie stars etc. WP does this well enough and it is not necessary to duplicate". In that scenario would notability even be considered? MM might not be covered due to the feasibility issue and no other. Therefore, this concept of exclusion is interesting since it may well catch many family friendly article too. Is there an outline somewhere (blog or such) of what is feasible from the perspective of CZ? Chris Day (Talk) 23: | :::I'm still trying to figure out the scope of CZ here. I read in one of the e-mails, or on the forum, an argument along the lines of "there is no good reason to have articles on TV shows, movie stars etc. WP does this well enough and it is not necessary to duplicate". In that scenario would notability even be considered? MM might not be covered due to the feasibility issue and no other. Therefore, this concept of exclusion is interesting since it may well catch many family friendly article too. Is there an outline somewhere (blog or such) of what is feasible from the perspective of CZ? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 23:24, 14 November 2006 (CST) |
Revision as of 23:24, 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). User general information template
User workgroup information template
See CZ:Userinfo System for usage instructions.
- I've previously thought you a little too restrictive, but in practice I would support your distinctions.DavidGoodman 22:42, 14 November 2006 (CST)
- I'm still trying to figure out the scope of CZ here. I read in one of the e-mails, or on the forum, an argument along the lines of "there is no good reason to have articles on TV shows, movie stars etc. WP does this well enough and it is not necessary to duplicate". In that scenario would notability even be considered? MM might not be covered due to the feasibility issue and no other. Therefore, this concept of exclusion is interesting since it may well catch many family friendly article too. Is there an outline somewhere (blog or such) of what is feasible from the perspective of CZ? Chris Day (Talk) 23:24, 14 November 2006 (CST)
- I've previously thought you a little too restrictive, but in practice I would support your distinctions.DavidGoodman 22:42, 14 November 2006 (CST)