Forum talk:Funspace Cleanup Project

Wouldn't it be better to simply mark out the ones that shouldn't be deleted? :D Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 10:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but marking it with delete means that it should definitely be deleted. -- Nx / talk 10:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is great and an awesome way to improve the site. Bravo, guys!--^talk 10:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much wiki foo but.... Suppose we moved the whole kit and kaboodle to NotFun space. If anybody deems anything worth keeping they can move it back again. Leave it for a while (six months) and zappo - anything not moved back is deleted. Or is this another of my stupid ideas? Bob Soles (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Break for class, back in an hour and a bit. Тай^{говорить} 12:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, we're well on our way to become BoringWiki on the basis of another ad hoc decision of a few people. RationalWiki really is no fun any more. sterile^talk 12:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, where would we be without this? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

RW is both fragile and immortal, because it is continually dying forever.--^talk 05:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sterile because this is the only way I can edit on my phone

We're not deleting fun, just the crap. -- Nx / talk 13:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that I made the point before the we really need to decide on some fun space standards if we are going to delete stuff. In other words decide what it is for and then test the existing articles against that measure in order decide if they should exist or not.

As far as I am aware we presently have no fun space standards and consequently no basis upon which to make a deletion decision. (However, it is possible that I missed this prior discussion in which case I withdraw my comment.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like fun:Yakshaving to me. We don't need people lawyering over standards because let's face it, the site's track record when it comes down to establishing rules in advance and then sticking to them is fucking abysmal beyond belief. Better to just plow through and see what the consensus is on each individual one because if we spent ages establishing standards we'd still have the same amount of discussion anyway, if not more, for each individual one except under the guise of "does it fit the standard?". ADK^{...I'll vocalise your kumquat!} 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The "another ad hoc decision of a few people" is more the point, not the attack on fun space. You guys criticize others for making arbitrary decisions, but yours are magically "OK." sterile^talk 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What decision? Everyone is welcome to state their case on the forum page. It's not ad hoc, and it's not a decision of a few people. -- Nx / talk 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It still seems to be a little odd to me to decide what should not be in funspace without first deciding what should be in funspace. On what basis can you make the decision?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's working on a common-sense basis, like "is it shit? Yes? Let's delete it." There doesn't seem to be much disagreement. Blue (is useful) 07:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For starters, it should be funny. Of course I don't have a sense of humeur so what do I know? -- Nx / talk 07:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

But the original purpose of "funspace" was not for funny articles. It was home for articles which might be improved later, stuff which was poor but not poor enough to delete, for stuff which was genuinely funny, weird stuff which was produced before the mission statements for mainspace existed and so on.

Unfortunately, by giving it the name "funspace" it gradually came to be assumed that things in funspace had to be "funny".

Looking at the reasons for deletion we seem to have almost as many reasons for deletion as we have articles up for deletion. This is not surprising because, as we have no funspace standards, then literally anything can be a potential reason for deletion.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What has been unfairly deleted because of this lack of standards?--^talk 06:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The last definition of funspace - made shortly after its conversion from ACD - was that it was for things which are:

• humorous, silly, or random

On this basis everything which has been deleted has been unfairly deleted as all the articles fall under one or other of these very broad definitions.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Where in the rules, pray tell, does it say that an article must be outside the scope of its namespace to be deleted? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So this was 'unfairly deleted,' yes? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it silly?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's spam. 'Random' spam I'll give you though. :D Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam? What is it trying to sell? But I'm not defending this one particularly. See below.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's a fair concern. I just think that getting caught up in the procedure kind of distracts from the more obvious conclusion, which is that all of this stuff is pretty crappy, and anyone who feels differently can save anything they disagree with deleting. This is one of those times when we have a few individuals who spurred up a dedicated effort to improve the wiki in a very real way, and they're doing virtually no harm. Trying to create procedure seems like it would be mistaking the appearance of fairness for its actual presence here already. They're knocking down crapshacks, but if anyone actually lives in one, they can sing out and we'll keep it standing. We don't need a Crapshack Removal Procedure to smell the problem, otherwise.--^talk 06:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I submit that it is not in the least a "fair concern." According to the rules, deleting a page requires nothing except a discussion. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Being worried about mass deletions or a quiet redefining of a namespace is a fair concern, and a reasonable one. I think it's a good thing to be on the alert about, even if this particular case is justified and will end up with a great improvement to the wiki.--^talk 07:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that we are doing this the wrong way round. If we even want a funspace then we should first decide what we want it for. Originally it was for silly stuff which was created before we had the wiki-objectives; stuff which was genuinely funny; and anything else which didn't seem to fit. Because a lot of it was silly it was given the name "fun". Not because it was actually meant to be "funny", but "fun" in the sense of larking about.

What we need to do then is re-define what this space is for and - if we still even want it - rename it to something more appropriate. As I have said before, deciding what should not be in the namespace without having a clear idea of what actually should be in the namespace is not a good way to work.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest just letting the mob work it out, and then codifying the result. Seems simpler and more likely to have a useful result.--^talk 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How many votes before a deletion

Since I don't see any individual page on this project attracting a mass of editors to have their say, I'd suggest that a page can be deleted a) when a majority of three editors call for its deletion or b) if a page doesn't attract much attention (i.e. one delete vote, no other comments) it can be deleted one week after the one delete vote is made. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be far more efficient to do it on the basis of what people aren't crying out to save more than the other way around. ADK^{...I'll dance your bazooka!}

More efficient, less tedious, yet not so draconian as dumping them all without mercy, and restoring a few based on public outcry. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Voting

I'm adding

Meh

It's a bit of work but sometimes it's not clear what is meant by the remarks. Rattus Rattus (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

PS thanks to whomever added me to Skipcapture - that was boring. Rattus Rattus (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It also makes the three strikes and it's gone rule clearer. Are we using that? Rattus Rattus (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never ever liked "three sticks and you're out" laws, cause they do not allow for an analysis of what the three strikes are (trolls? mehs? close calls?) or of 4 other people though it should stay. We are grown up. I think it will be pretty apparent which articles can go instantly, and which we might keep for conversation or whatever. En attendant Godot 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is really no need for that. It's just going to bloat the page more than anything. ADK^{...I'll nuke your blow-up doll!} 18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was starting on a roll of "delete" votes, but a visitor showed up IRL and I lost session data and lost interest. How about giving it a few days and vaporizing any article without a clear defense? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's better to go through the list deleting the ones specifically picked out for deletion. There's a lot of articles there and we can't expect them all to be gotten through in one sitting. Gradually the list will get smaller and smaller until we're left only with articles we want to keep. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits not lining up

Somethign weird is happening. when i click on "edit" for one line, i'm getting the edit field for an earlier one. (the one right before, i think). It's pushing the edits I make to other columns, also. very odd. (when i look at things i said are "stupid" they are showing up on other topics.)En attendant Godot 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to thank the contributions of a useful idiot who has been inserting Delete/Keep/Meh as sections. When you edit a section rather than the whole page you edit a numbered section but if someone saves the page with additional sections then your edit is saved in the wrong place. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, message received, I'll stop. Rattus Rattus (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Either the automatic edit conflict resolution places your edit in the proper section, or you get an edit conflict. What happened is you clicked a section edit button on an outdated version of the page. Just refresh the page and find the section again, then click edit. -- Nx / talk 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just be pedantic for a while and say what I'm commenting on, so i can clean it up later if i manage to get it in the wrong place. :-)En attendant Godot 17:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving Deleted to another page?

Can we remove the deleted stuff to another page, so we can highlight those articles that still need reviewed by the "mob?". Or is that either/both not practice and not "open edit".En attendant Godot 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes please! D: --Dumpling (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Funspace Cleanup Project deleted so I can find it easily Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mothball

Until HK started, I was going to suggest that we mothball this page. The project ran out of steam months ago. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 to mothball this page, but we still should have an ongoing project. Perhaps a new page? Better organized system? Blue (pester) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mothball for now. Ty^{Bother me} 02:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We can come back to the subject later, but for now: {{mothball}} Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not say that the project lost steam; I would say that it simply finished its task of clearing all the particularly egregious cruft out of funspace. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It didn't get all of it, that's for sure. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

last gasp

Any one care if I go through and delete the ones left with majority delete votes? Humorless fascist^sociopath 20:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Well, Nutty might pop up to say something, but I certainly don't mind. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey look, people voted, now to work. Humorless fascist^sociopath 04:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)