Talk:Fun/Archive 1

Archive 1

sponteous => spontaneous  ???

124.50.140.7 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks! Korg (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect "Having fun" to this article "Fun"

I will also post this here, so that maybe it can get addressed quicker. "Having fun" currently redirects to "Recreation." Somebody please redirect "Having fun" to this article, "Fun." I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImAlwaysHungry (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I got "Having Fun" redirected to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImAlwaysHungry (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the lowercase "having fun" still redirects to the article "Recreation!" Someone please help.ImAlwaysHungry (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-starting this article

The word fun was adapted from Olly Rosenstocks bantar. He is fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.179.220 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been a redirect to recreation for the longest time, but "fun" and "recreation" are not the same and each topic deserves its own treatment. So, here is a start.Ekem (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Because reading that was FUN alright!

Um since when did this have anything to do with fun? Surfing...?? Really you couldn't have put a picture of a moon bounce or something?? Wow.

Signed, Kaylin Bella Wine

Extreme Genious.

March 10, 2012. ӴҲШ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoAhead&HackMeIfYouCan (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

template move protection

after i substituted the temnplate, i couldn't edit the text in the template. the article is still semi-protected, right? Jawadreventon (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article so short? Can't we think of anything more that's fun?

There's an issue with the above statement: It has to do with the fact that Wikipedia is NOT fun. Nothing on Wikipedia is fun. Fun cannot and never will be had here. All we need to do is delete this article. Motion to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fun and keep wikipedia a non fun purely questionable informative resource say 'I'. I. The I's have it.Zoele (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC) §Fun page should be huge informative because as we surf the internet for fun a huge data comes across like funny quotes etc so taking into account the whole scene there should be huge info regarding this topic.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.5.173 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure there's fun. There's fun in the pursuit of arcane knowledge. There's fun in browsing the humorous pages here (list of lamest edit wars, anyone?). There's lots of fun I can find in a gigantic and boundless reservoir or facts, figures and knowledge. It's even kinda fun to try and pronounce all those foreign place names when you press random article too much. Wikipedia can be fun just as anything can be fun. As the remains of THIS ARTICLE put it, fun is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, wikipedia not fitting an adjective is not sufficient cause for deleting the article on the adjective. There can be a page on "deletoriousness" or something (there isn't in this case, but...) and it can still provide valuable, factual information on the quality of deletoriousness and being deletorious, even though Wikipedia does not have a deletorious effect on anything except high-schoolers' essays' bibliographies. Wikipedia is fun, mkay? 71.224.62.51 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wowzers

This is actually a very impressive article. The quantity of scholarly references and direct attributions to famous writers and thinkers is top notch. The problem is, the article is still a stub. Does anyone want to help turn this whole thing into a featured article? You know, it'll be very challenging, but the real point is to have lots of fun. --Carrot Lord (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the surfing image there?

Why do we need a picture of surfing? I removed it [1] but Amadscientist restored it claiming we needed more discussion first.[2] So, lets discuss. What does this add to the article? Does it help explain what fun is in any possible way? Can we tell if those two people are actually having fun? They could just be trying it for the first time ever and hating it, we have no way of knowing. Can't really see their faces to know if they even look happy. Different people consider different things fun. Perhaps showing some children playing or something would work best. Dream Focus 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another editor added a pic of two children playing and it was reverted back to the surfing pic. I think you'll see a section above about that. Fun is inherently subjective; we can't read the minds of either surfers or kids, and I can't imagine an objective picture, but I do think the article is better with a picture. I don't have strong feelings as to which of the two pictures is better, but the recently added section on research concerning novelty might tip it towards the surfers, and the children suggested fun was childlike, which is not what the sources say. So I'm somewhat inclined toward the surfers. The article is too short to have both ... ? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You can tell if children are having fun, by their facial expressions. I haven't seen this other picture, so I don't know. Did it show them smiling while playing together? I check the history and all I see is the surfer picture, or a red link to a file called ManHavingFun.jpg. Dream Focus 21:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this article is a target for pranks and vandalism - I just failed to find it. It was two young children sitting on steps (?) and one was laughing. Two other pics are redlinks now: the one you mention and one of teenagers at some party. What I did find is that prior to the surfers, the article had a picture of summer luging in the Vosges. I've put that plus a few other possibilities from the Commons category in a gallery below, but as I said I'd prefer not to use pics of children because I think it gives a misleading impression. I kind of like the surfing pic; you pretty much only surf because it's fun. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I like the surfing pic too. It is a visually fun image and as Yngvadottir observes, "You pretty much only surf because it's fun." -—Kvng 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I also like the Surf pic. I think it is an image that captures "fun". We could even caption the image as such and reference the origin of the phrase etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I really like this particular surfing picture too because it has a whimsical quality that makes you smile and it communicates how people have fun doing physical activities, especially when they make fun for themselves out of what nature provides them (waves, snow, rain, dirt etc). The surfing picture was already there when I started to edit this article so I wrote the points about physical activity, spontaneity etc, using surfing as a model to relate to fun. However, the other people are right too. Surfing and other activities are causes of fun, while what we need to illustrate is the effect. This is difficult. It probably means we need to show the result of fun - someone's face, for example, that would illustrate the effect. At the same time, we need to show that children are good at fun but adults love fun too. I will add some images to try to do all this. See what you think. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should do whatever Whiteghost tells us to, considering he completely awesomefied Entertainment.. and this isn't too dissimilar at all. :D--Coin945 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Awesomefied" - I love it! Thoughts and corrections from the world are good too though. And those images that Yngvadottir found were very helpful :) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I for one feel that this particular article can use a good deal of images and love the direction it has taken. Good job people!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Lost in Space

There's a scene in Lost in Space which has always stuck in my mind, especially when someone suggests that it's time for fun. Smith grimly announces that they will have "fun-fun-fun", slapping his mouth to punctuate each utterance. I can't find a good source for this - can anyone place it?

I have started an IPC section for the article, kicking it off with Zippy who seems to have an equally scary attitude to fun.

Of course, in subverting the naive view of the topic, I am somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Fun, isn't it... ? Warden (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Time flies when you're having fun"...

Mention also the converse; does time flying necessarily indicate we are having fun or are there other possibilities of what we are having... Jidanni (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If Fun really fun?

Fun bias anyone? A proper npov would state there is no proof for such a thing. 24.21.185.255 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fun as a character or aspect of personality

The article describes fun as a feeling or activity, but does it have a secondary meaning as a description of character, atmosphere, or personality?

As in: A fun guy, a fun place, a fun party, a good time girlie - a really fun woman! Can fun be not a thing you do or have, but a thing you are?

Is fun related to extroversion? Or cuteness? Does this article need to be expanded to talk about fun in this sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheMonro (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fun topic

Isn't this a fun topic?66.87.113.171 (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Types of Fun

The "Types of Fun" section looks like it's based on LeBlanc's categories of pleasure. These are described on this blog page, which provides the source as Greg Costikyan, http://www.costik.com/nowords2002.pdf. They are also described on this Wikipedia page on MDA framework. Dogsrgood (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Hello. The Types of Fun section is attached to this source: MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. The authors are Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, Robert Zubek. The paper is found on the Northwestern University website at this link: https://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf MrsRenegade (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

the opposite of donald trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:A300:D0EB:8EDA:6ED7:8F88 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Surfing

I am aware the surfing picture comes from the recreation page, but surfing is something that fits "recreation" better than it does "fun", hence the (who?) that followed the unverified caption "Some people think surfing is fun", so I changed it to some young 'uns that are obviously enjoying themselves and having fun. Hope no one objects. a_loco 1:57, 13 April 2011

I object the surfing image was much better and looked far more defining of "fun" then just two kids laughing.

I believe that an image more fitting for the page would be an image of teens having fun at a party. BMO4744 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Has fun" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Has fun. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Has fun until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

can i edit – 2A02:C7F:D877:8B00:8812:7A3A:B9A6:6C9D (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template to suggest edits to this page, because it has been semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. Or you can ask that the protection level be removed – requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Or you can become a registered editor, make some edits to become "autoconfirmed", and edit the page directly. Thank you very much, and have a lot of "fun" editing Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(shh a message to Garcia) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

pls let me edit Callie23456 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) callie

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

In the link to "Marxist", please replace the Marxism-Leninism link with a link to Marxist philosophy. This is a philosophical topic, not something related to vanguardism. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done — HTGS (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)