Fun talk:Moscow

Mission?

Is this at all relevant to what we do? Amin7b5 20:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's got snark, I'll give him that. Fun? Userfy? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaporize for being borderline incoherent. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done and finished. Moscow has been nuked. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored per discussion at Category_talk:United_States_states. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 13:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where on that page does it say anything about restoring this one? ListenerX^TalkerX 14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where it says we don't want to axe our precious other articles on locations. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that the general consensus on the other page is, "The other articles are good; this one is, um, not so good." ListenerX^TalkerX 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And you neglect that most good articles might have started out as "um, not so good". If you expect them to be 'de novo' fucking awesome, then you're just an idiot. Give it some time. Maybe the editor (or someone or you) will improve it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If some article starts out as not the best it can be, it can be improved; if on the other hand some article starts out completely incoherent, it is begging to be overwritten or vaporized. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess didn't see it as being as incoherent as you did. Do what you will, I'm not going to like you either way. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that I made your little s***-list. Is that just over the religious issues, or...? ListenerX^TalkerX 15:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what it is...and it's around half serious. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Grace Period

Perhaps we need a grace period for budding articles. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If they are bad as this one, naw. What we do have are many easy ways to "incubate" them - user, fun, and essay spaces are obvious places to put things that aren't ready to stand on their own two legs. Apart from the "capital of Russia" part, what this article says is true of most of the world's major cities, isn't it? ħuman 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have been fine if we sent it to fun or even user. I thought nuking it without even word from the editor was a little drastic. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But it really sucked and they haven't been improving it or joining in the discussion. Although sticking it in their user space would have been fine with me... ħuman 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But I always wanted to nuke Moscow... :( ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ In Soviet Russia, the ambiguous driptray hurts YOU! 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was nuked 5 minutes after creation. Are you in the ListenerX camp that it should have been de novo awesome? All I'm saying is that we just jumped the gun on this one. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it such a big deal? And why do we have to join "camps"? Also, why do you think this article is worthwhile? ħuman 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)