Fun talk:Mowse

This should be 'moush.' --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{is an evil librul} 13:54, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Why? ħuman 14:54, 8 January 2009 (EST)

lol heresy. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Why not give the mowse Chianti? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not?^{An iron, yet caring fist} 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal LecterMowse? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But of course. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Night of the blunt mousetraps

I shall make no attempt to defend this. It was part of the not-so-great "Mowse" meme of backalong. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Purge article, keep pics. Тy^Talk. 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're killing our history. P-Foster (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what RWW is for. Тy^Talk. 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All 5 of you on there? We've no shortage of space AFAIK so what's the problem? --Scream!! (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

EC Actually, RWW seems to exist mostly to keep spammers busy these days, but that's not really important here. Stuff like this is a little goofy, but it's part of who we are. Whatever, no matter. Go ahead. I've had enough HCM these past few days. P-Foster (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sock more like 9. @P-Foster I've had enough too , I'm tired and I don't care right now. Тy^Talk. 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like mowses should at least be mentioned at RWW. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy write it in a sec. Тy^Talk. 22:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Stub written. Anyone who was there feel free to expand. Тy^Talk. 23:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Killing our history" my arse. Who reads it? Who is interested in it? What does it develop? You can't just keep things because they're old and the fact that we have the space isn't the issue. The issue is that if you want to find something, you end up trying to find it amongst a pile of crap. The wiki needs to be connected, relevant and readable. If there's shit clogging that up, it's not helping. ^sshole 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"You can't just keep things because they're old." So burn down the Smithsonian/the National Archives/museums/Grandma? What searches, exactly, does this page clog up? P-Foster (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They contain things of value, their value isn't determined by the fact that they're old. You misunderstand the point if you think museums have content just because things are old. I once saw a 200 year old violin valued on Antiques Roadshow for a mere £18. It just wasn't worth anything because it was a knock off and crap model, as opposed to a Stratovarius that would have been thousands of times more valuable. But anyway, I'm going to do my usual thing of standing back, not giving a fuck, and letting people who care deal with it. I have no attachment to any particular article and no vested interest either way. ^sshole 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want the opinion of a lurker who started reading RW a few months ago, I would say that when I read a Fun page, all that matters is whether or not it's funny, not "history" or someone else's nostalgia. If I come across a shit article, I think, "That's shit," not "That's shit, but I'm sure some people here have a strong emotional attachment to it, so that's fine." Chthonios (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The earthy one has it right. If people want to keep an article they can put it in their userspace. I see RA did that earlier today, I did one last night and so on. Also, I want a stratovarius. The televarius isn't quite there really. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)