Fun talk:Moscow

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Done and finished. Moscow has been nuked. Javasca₧ wasn't me! 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? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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...? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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[edit]

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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
But I always wanted to nuke Moscow... :( ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate! 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)