Talk:Fun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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

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)

Re-starting this article[edit]

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)

sponteous => spontaneous  ???[edit]

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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I got "Having Fun" redirected to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImAlwaysHungry (talkcontribs) 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)

Surfing[edit]

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.

Wow. Because reading that was FUN alright![edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

template move protection[edit]

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)

Wowzers[edit]

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)

Sources for TAFI[edit]

Why is the surfing image there?[edit]

Why do we need a picture of surfing? I removed it [2] but Amadscientist restored it claiming we needed more discussion first.[3] 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[edit]

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"...[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)