Category talk:Fun

Filling this category, and then purging it of the unfunniness will take time. Тy^Talk. 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose just removing this category. Unless someone wants to go through every Fun-space article... Thunderkatz^Ho! 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for a bot.

ListenerX^TalkerX 04:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Тy^Talk. 13:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing do it. As for unfunny, we could have Category:lame "Fun".Civic Cat (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mei sorta tried, some unfunnyness was purged. Do what you like. Тy^Talk. 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Utility[edit]

This category only makes sense to have under our current liberal definition of funspace, which includes things that aren't meant to be funny. It's also not well applied right now, and it would be a hell of a job to go through all of funspace to add it. Blue (pester) 21:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

One could argue for removing it from all funspace on grounds of redundancy. Sophie^Wilder

15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there...[edit]

Is there a page you can go to that lists ALL the articles in Funspace, and not just those articles that contain the Category: Fun tag? --Tracer (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Select "Fun" from the "Namespace menu" on Special:AllPages. The result is this link. Alternatively, use Special:PrefixIndex, which works in a similar manner. Similar fun pages can be found via Special:SpecialPages, linked in the sidebar.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

IMAO there's a good argument for tagging every single Fun: article with [[Category:Fun]], as I've being doing with the ones I've found --- to make it easier to clean rubbish out of RW, and to make this category page more spritely and worth visiting. I may have doubled the number in Category:Fun today without breathing hard; but there could be 100+ articles which still aren't tagged. There are some excellent articles; some which would deserve their place in RW with a bit of work; and some which will never be more than lame or irrelevant, and which should go. I'd be happy to try to link all existing Fun: articles into here, if a janatorial squad would help sweep the junk once linked ~~under the carpet~~ into the oblivion where it belongs. All thoughts welcome. ProblemChimp (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're basically making this category redundant to this page. Sophie^Wilder

19:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your link (which I hadn't seen before) is the ideal way to index every funspace article; but isn't easy to browse, and contains some confusing maintenance-type duplicates (e.g. Fun:101_evidences (italicised in your list) and Fun:101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe). Only one is needed in Category:Fun. Also, it isn't sorted by DEFAULTSORT.

Something which was at the back of my mind in my previous post: Category:Fun is short of subcategories, which would make navigation easier. For example, all articles about (say) sports, or countries, could be subcategorised, roughly parallel to the mainspace categories. That might encourage people to fill in gaps. (I haven't made any subcats: there's no point in making one which turns out to be tiny; and as a noob, I want to avoid treading on toes if I can.)

The subcategories which do exist aren't fully populated. For example, I've just added Fun:Karajou Quote Generator to Category:Conservapedia fun articles (which for some reason won't link here :-/), where it belonged. On the other hand, Fun:Evidence for the existence of the supernatural Bingo is in both Fun and Bingo, but should only be in the latter.

It occurs to me that Best of amusement (which currently contains a recursive entry to itself) might be reserved as an additional accolade for the best of the best. For example, I've just spotted that Fun:Andrew Schlafly is rightly in BoA, but not in CP fun, where I think it belongs as well.

This page made me grin, but speaks for itself. As always, comments welcome. ProblemChimp (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A long time later, here's the DPL treatment for this namespace too, like was done with Debate and Essay recently. For the Fun pages not linked to from articles, missing categorizations mean they may almost never be seen after no longer new.

Below is an automatic list of uncategorized pages (specifically not in Category:Fun). They vary a lot in qualities, maybe looking them over a few at a time more carefully is better? Subpages are excluded. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is safe to say that many of these do not deserve to be seen and should be deleted forthwith. Others could have Category:Fun added. Bongolian (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, some seemed crappy, but I don't yet have a good sense for where the dividing line really goes on keeping vs. deleting on RW, especially "Fun" pages. There's also sometimes several on the same topic, and sometimes I think they could be worth keeping as a merged page. Some clever one-liner word definitions could also perhaps be brought together on one page, the individual pages deleted. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Category talk:Fun

Utility[edit]

Is there...[edit]

Cleanup[edit]

Navigation menu

Search