My point is more along the lines of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Yes, if a reliable source says something, it can be elligible for inclusion, but just because there’s a source doesn’t mean it has to be included either.

Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Reply That’s not what I’m saying, though I can’t say I’m surprised to see it misunderstood that way. ' - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Reply WP:NOTCENSORED - reception is reception and as long as the comments are made by RS, I see no policy-backed rationale to alter this. ie, use these sources for a statement on, say, ' has been praised as a video game sex icon by multiple outlets due to. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Reply I don't think that it should necessarily be removed as much as condensed. But there may be some pushback, as 1) some people still don’t understand the problem with this and 2) for some of these character articles, that’s the only “reception” they could scrounge up. There’s way too much of this empty, pointless “X was ranked #8 on Complex’s ‘Hottest Girls of 2009’ because ‘she’s hawt and has long legs’”. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Reply Yes, I agree, this has been a common complaint of mine as well. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in going over some of these articles and trying to help tweak them.

Not that instances of the character's sexuality/sex appeal should be ignored because of what they are, but it feels that some things either go into too great of detail, or are downright vulgar in how the information is presented. I feel that some female character articles have too strong an emphasis on sexuality.

Cortana quiet sorceress