Talk:Bomb

Now we have another stupid article with a link to a bomb recipe. - User   04:00, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Worth a "mission" template?--Bobbing up 04:03, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Probably. It is neither entertaining or about anything on mission, it has the typical newbie CP reference but that is it. - User   04:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * It appears to be from CP should we add it to the spoof article list, again though it is not that interesting. - User   04:08, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It's funny how you say it doesn't "fit the mission statement". My article on the British empire doesn't even fulfil the 3 poi8nts of the mission statement.
 * The British Empire would probably full under the "exploring authoritarianism" one. - User   04:11, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * ...typical newbie CP reference —Pi. It's that predictable?   04:15, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Unfortunately. - User   05:06, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * I vote get rid of this and Petard. They're not with the "mission" and they're not fun enough to be moved to the fun namespace. And putting a CP reference in doesn't make them on-mission or fun. Bondurant 04:35, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Actually "fun" isn't just for things that are fun. It's for anything which doesn't (presently) fit the mission but we don't actually want to zap. --Bobbing up 04:38, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * It shouldn't be. That's what's keep funspace so shit.  If we restricted it to things that actually are fun, it might be a more valued part of the site.   09:04, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, petard was interesting as I didn't know anything about the word before. It fits in with a medieval history section, but so far, that doesn't particularly exist.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 04:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Well, I made no mention about authoritarianism in the article on the British Empire. 60.49.156.38 05:00, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well it will get added later than. - User   05:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Shall we delete this one too? Right now, it's not saying anything worthwhile. We probably could create an on-mission article about bombs, but I don't think we necessarily need one, & shouldn't have to write one just because somebody drops something off-mission on us. 09:04, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete or banish to fun.--Bobbing up 09:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * But it's not fun. . . .  10:31, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Fun was originally ACD - literally "Article Creation Drive" wher people created inane articles to make fun of CP. It was off-mission stuff created for fun. ACD was seen to be a confusing name so "fun" was created. The original intent was that stuff which actually either was funny, or that could one day become an article could be put to fun while people thought about it. Later though the name "fun" gained a life of its own and the assumption is gowning that only articles that are, in fact, "fun" should be there. We talk about this in three places:


 * RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/Namespace Cleanup ... Fun - These are for humorous, silly, or random articles
 * RationalWiki:Namespace ... For amusing articles about not much at all, use "Fun:"
 * Help:Namespace ...  Fun - Off mission and amusing or entertaining? Then it goes here.

While all of these mention amusing, they also allow for definitions of fun. Nevertheless, in the case of this article I'd delete it, but fun is an option.--Bobbing up 11:32, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * As I see it, fun really should just be for fun. Stuff that's work-in-progress can be done in userspace, & stuff that's article-ish but not good enough for mainspace can be put in essay space.  I don't think this one belongs in fun or essay, so I say delete it.   14:31, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * You might be right, but that is not what we say at the moemnt.   Project whitewash says:   Articles that do not have any real serious material or point probably are best placed in the fun: namespace, or even deleted.  Which confirms again that we have a history of putting anything "not mission" in fun.  Furthermore essay is not a good idea as it tends to give ownership of an article. Remember the problem with Fd's contribution.--Bobbing up 16:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)