Forum:Rename "Fun" space

< Index | Site-related discussion

As we know we have a "fun space". It was originally "ACD" - Article Creation Drive, a spoof on the CP project with a similar name in which ridiculous short stubs were created.

Subsequently it was renamed to "Fun" with the idea being that it would be a space for:

Stuff which did not fit the then newly-created missions.
Stuff which could one day be converted into an article but was not up to mainspace standard.
Stuff that was genuinely funny but inappropriate for mainspace.
Anything else that we didn't know what to do with but didn't want to delete.

Unfortunately, with the passage of time, people have come to see "funspace" as reserved for things which are actually "funny". And articles which really should go this "holding for improvement or debate" space are either deleted or converted into essays.

I therefore propose that we rename fun space to something more meaningful and useful. Off the top of my head I would like to suggest:

Outer space
Outa space
Holding space

But we really need to decide if a change is a good idea before talking about names.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea. We do need some kind of work-in-progress (WIP) space that isn't confined to user sub pages. And similarly, we need to be clear that "fun" space doesn't necessarily mean "funny", as it's sort of come to mean. Because they are still articles on RW, and they will be seen so they need a point. Perhaps first we define what its purpose should be before thinking of names.

^moral 17:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

EC So keep the Fun space for goofy shit and have another space for stuff that is still "in the shop"? I like the idea, but isn't that what stubbing is for? P-Foster (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need to decide on the principle before a name. I was thinking about the recent move of the atomic energy criticisms to essay and the Hitchhikers article which we have just commented on. Creating an additional namespce would, I think, just complicate matters.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The nuclear thing is something that possibly could have benefited from this sort of idea. But I think the major problem there was that there was too much "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no... you're wrong" "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!!" going on, rather than the lack of an appropriate space to duke it out in - we do have the "debate" space for that, but that doesn't imply that it leads to an article. An entire new namespace just for controversial POV issues is an interesting idea, but might be overkill as I don't think they're common enough to warrant it.

^moral 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It was simply an example of something which should have gone to "otherspace" rather than essay.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a very good example, I'm just wondering if it's enough to justify an additional namespace. It's definitely something that would justify figuring out our "work-in-progress" methods, but what if we used the essay space and made them collective essays until they were settled?

^moral 18:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage. Funspace should already be being used like this - it's the name that deters people. That's why I'm suggesting renaming it. I am not suggesting an additional namespace.

Meanwhile essay space was (partly) designed to allow us to avoid groupthink and allow people to express ideas which are contrary to the consensus (It also allows people to simply rant about things which interest them personally but which are off mission.) The whole idea of "collaborative essays" in this context is a bit odd as it is not clear what is the difference between a "collaborative essay" and an article.

My proposed change is minimal - just rename funspace.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that I have written many a good article for the funspace, I am of the strong opinion that it should be kept as is. Why? Because the articles there truly are there for the "fun" factor and are not meant to meet our standards for a mainspace article. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But there are shitloads of crappy articles made to spoof CP's article creation drive that nobody has cared about since 2007. they can go, and the few good ones can stay. Like, Goonie, I wouldn't want to see my only goodun vanish forever. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the limbo space. I would think an invitation at the community chalkboard or saloon bar would be a way to get community involvement. It's a wiki; there are articles that are always unfinished and messy. There also have been collaborative essay. I also definitely do not like the idea of renaming fun. There's too many silly (and, yes, dumb) articles in fun that are not goint to be improved, ever. I'd get rid of it before I'd rename it. sterile hotel 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll just also add that I don't see the harm in it. There are on-mission articles that no one ever looks at. I mean, if server space is an issue, fine, then get rid of it. If they are total gibberish, fine as well. But if they are really fun, then why not? It's part of what gives RW a lighter tone. sterile hotel 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Would the work in progress template sufficiently genericized and not referring to a specific use do what Bob wants?sterile hotel 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Under Construction:
This article is currently receiving a major revamp by RW users. Please do not edit it while this template is up. However, feel free to offer input on the talk page.
If this template is up for more than a few weeks without activity, you may remove it.

Burn it[edit]

Because it's just a section for things we don't want to delete but can't justify keeping. When was the last time you enjoyed an article in funspace? Really? Mei III (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Creationist and Global Warming Denial Bingo. Though the lack of a way of quick hitting "random article" for the funspace and a massive variation in quality does cause a problem with wanting to browse it.

^moral 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) agree with Mei mostly, I find the Bingos and RWWW to be funny, the rest... Тy^Talk. 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If we don't want to keep them and don't want to delete them, Perhaps they could be dumped on RWW (which nobody reads anyway) and the keepwothy few could move to essayspace, cpspace or whatever. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at RWW as of late, it is alive and well. And I can speak for the folks there (or can I?) when I say we are most likely not interested in the "fun" articles. But if you disagree, bring it up at their Treehouse. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 18:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Goonie on RWW. Тy^Talk. 18:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting stuff in Funspace just to be polite should stop. The rest actually has some value to some people, though it's usually hard to locate. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Funspace shouldn't be for things we keep just for the sake of keeping, & should be for stuff which actually is fun. I don't think fun should be used for WiP stuff intended for mainspace - essay or userspace is the best place for that. Like Conservapedia-space, fun suffers from variable quality levels & from most content being largely ignored & forgotten once it's written. It could definitely do with a clean-up, but it would be a pretty big operation, & there are probably bigger priorities for the site. Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I like a lot of the Fun stuff. I'd be willing to help sort through it and improve where I can. sPaRkY^{Can we really trust the Blathereen?} 18:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the section about you will find that the point being made is that "Fun" wasn't actually designed to be only for "fun".--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

then why is it called Fun? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As I imply in the section above it was simply thought to be a good idea at the time. Later the name gave it a separate life which was not intended.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The origins are kindof irrelevant. For as long as I've been at RW, the point of funspace has explicitly been for "fun" articles. Some people tend to use as a soft alternative to deletion for crap that doesn't belong in main, but I've always objected to this, as have quite a lot of other users. Your vision of funspace seems at odds with the idea of it being funspace at all & I do not agree that your proposed change is minimal. Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed change is to make it useful.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And to give it back its original purpose.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 19:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You have two cows must live! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

you have two cows. one of them is deleted, the other becaomes an essay. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

also, argue its case, on its talkpage. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

All single-author funspace articles that aren't in best of fun (or near it) to be moved to userspace. Should clear out a few. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but I feel like we should create a page where we can debate each case individually (even if it's just "get rid of this one?/yeah, get rid of it") rather than just diving in and sorting through afterwards. Mei III (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Grand Purge of April 2011 perhaps? Тy^Talk. 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

definitely discuss deletion, but no need to discuss moving stubs to userspace because the content is kept. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Best of Amusement[edit]

Isn't this what the category Best of Amusement is for? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

no, that's for things that really are funny. Also, categories are different from namespaces. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant. Why have both, unless people still object to the "new" meaning of funspace? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

you'd still need a way of keeping the humorous articles out of mainspace, which is, ostensibly, serious. also, what about mainspace articles with fun equivalents? we still need funspace, but just for funny articles and not any old crap. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What Ace Reckons[edit]

While there are some good ideas here and some of those funspace articles are wildly irrelevant and merely consist of an editors verbal diarrhea I do find the keenness of some editors for wholesale deletion concerning. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of late there does seem to be almost more interest in deletion than creation.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you rather we make crap, or delete it? sPaRkY^{Can we really trust the Blathereen?} 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the fun space I find is what give's RW its character. I don't wanna comes across as a grouchy old "RW is is the way it is and that's the ways I likes it!" but this deletion move needs to be more tempered. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that many.

^moral 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, nothing has been deleted, just added to a category for review for deletion. Тy^Talk. 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite, but I do believe a process should be agreed upon (in the chaotic fashion we do things in) Ace ^{of Spades} 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On principle it is better to create new articles, the next best thing is improve existing ones - if people really have nothing better to do to improve the wiki then I suppose searching for things to delete is useful. Presumably it's a lot easier then constructively creating new content.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

List[edit]

Here's the list. I guess I still see most of the 887 articles as not really in process, even if they aren't fun/funny or are just plain stupid. sterile hotel 20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mei's Pointing[edit]

As a brief start, this category contains a small list of what at least three people think is crap (see the cat's talk page). Rather than put a delete template on all of those articles, I thought the best thing would be to post a notice here that if there are no objections, I'll kill the lot in 48 hours (plus the category). If there's anything anybody wants to keep, just remove it from that category. Seem fair? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just two days? That seems a little hasty. sPaRkY^{Can we really trust the Blathereen?} 12:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

see my comment there. Some stuff can go in userspace. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Presently there are no standards for Funspace. If we are going to massively delete stuff then we need to decide what - if anything - is appropriate in funspace. Without that yardstick it is difficult to say what should and should not be there and people will simply delete whatever they personally don't like. I would certainly agree there is a pile of stuff that seems pointless to me but it would be nice to have some agreement on what should and should not be there. Something clear upon which to base any deletion discussion.

Really we need to finish the discussion above about the purpose of funspace before deciding what doesn't fit that purpose.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think anything consisting of two lines of text or less can be deleted without qualms. That ought to cut the list down by about half. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding a ton to Mei's category, making some into mainspace subsections, and moving some sideways to userspace or CPspace. Right now i've deleted only the very very uselessest. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you are doing that and clearly it's doubtful that anybody would justify a two line stub on the letter "A" or whatever. It just seems amazing to me that we are doing this without deciding what - if anything - should be in funspace.

As usual it's just people doing what they personally feel is a good idea. Skipping debate is clearly a quick way of getting things done when you are convinced you are right. I'm just uneasy about such processes.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Even a one-line article might actually be a good joke. the only things I've deleted are an attack page and two pages that were just external links. Everything even vaguely worth keeping is up for discussion, really - and hopefully that won't just be three sysops saying delete in ten minutes and out it goes. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving to userspace[edit]

Please have the courtesy to let the user know on their talk page; if they have pibot implemented mark it "sticky". That is all. ħuman 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep fun, but nuke the unfunny shit[edit]

There are a few articles in fun space that genuinely made me chuckle. (Like Fun:RationalWikiWikiWiki, but maybe that's just because I find recursion so amusing.) But most of it is crud. Mercilessly kill the unfunny shite, but keep the stuff that is good. Maybe a good guideline might be this:

Everything in Fun gets deleted after 3 months, unless 3 editors (other than author of the article in question) oppose deletion.

This is opposite of the normal rule (deletion if enough people support it) into "auto-deletion unless enough people oppose it". That should give people time to try to be funny, but if after a generous 3 months few people laugh, it dies. Like a slow motion comedy club..... --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I support deleting the unfunny shit as & when we find it, but not routinely auto-nominating everything in fun for deletion. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)