Forum talk:Funspace Cleanup Project deleted

You may want to replace the wikilinks with {{r|articlename}} to avoid filling up wanted pages. Тай^{говорить} 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Or rather external links to the deleted history/undelete page. (use fullurl please) -- Nx / talk 17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx, if you would do the first one, the way you want, I'll copy it and do the rest. En attendant Godot 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/Fun:ACD -- Nx / talk 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of it over the next few hours. En attendant Godot 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of funspace

Funspace is (presently) for humorous, silly, or random articles. Just saying is all.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And nothing that was deleted fit that description. I think those who are deleting (Blue and Sprocket, maybe?) have been pretty careful to just delete stuff that had no other comments but 'delete'. My take, anyhow.En attendant Godot 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So nothing silly was deleted?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're being pragmatic. Article deletion does not require a specific rationale from policy, only a discussion. We will eventually want to have a discussion about the remit of funspace, but it's not required for this cruft-cleaning project. Blue (pester) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I said "keep" to anything that had 1) any amount of work in it, or 2) made me smile - even a little. And no one has "deleted" anything that had *any* keep votes. so i think it's safe to assume that the only thing dumped was "huh?" type stuff. En attendant Godot 19:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

CP had its article creation drive, people on RW decided to make fun of it by creating utterly ridiculous article in our main space for things like every letter of the alphabet or number 1-1000. In our efforts to reform the main space we moved all that shit to an ACD namespace. People kept putting in stuff and ACD was to cryptic so we renamed it fun. Then I wrote a bot to change every possible link and referral to the ACD space to fun. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's how I remember it as well. But given the current interest in funspace what we now need to decide is:

Do we still want a "funspace"?

If so, what do we want in it?

Only once we have decided if we want the thing and, if so, what we want in it - only then will we have a reasonable yardstick which will enable us to decide what should not be in it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Silly comes in various varieties. Silly with a spark of wit about it is worth keeping. My removals have generally been micro-stubs of small value and with little activity, not the sorts of pages that need the scrutiny of a plenary session. I have kept the pace deliberate, hardly a massive flurry of deletions. Easy enough for any sysop to view the history of a deleted page and come to their own conclusion. Are there any that you would like to restore? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but articles like "ten - a number bigger than 9 and smaller than 11" is really not necessary. we can make that decision even if we don't yet know what a "fun" space should be. There's no reason to have total crap. No one is whole scale deleting the "fun" namespace. they are deleting things that really are stupid, not silly. I don't see anyone deleting anything that anyone has put time into, good writing, bad writing, funny jokes or not. En attendant Godot 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)(edit con)