Talk:Recreation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Sports icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Sports and games Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Sports To-do:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


ha ha u lot are ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.2.197.213 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] How Wikipedia works

I think this says a lot on how wikipedia answers ones questions.

I was bored the other day, and I wanted to have some fun, but I wasn't sure of what to do. So I searched wikipedia on the word "fun".

Then I got redirected to "recreation" which had much to do with sports and such. I read some of it, but then I clicked "See also: Nude recreation" which in small steps took me to this picture of naked yoga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Naked_yoga.jpg

I'm trying that out right now, and "Fun" for me might just happen to be naked yoga.

It's in the word's etymology. What are we re-creating when we recreate?

-69.1.18.14 22:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A good question, actually. From what I know, it's meant as 'renewal'. Wisco 20:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

dont use this website cuz its obvious that anyone can change it, like me!!!!!!!!!!

AISOS (am I stupid or something)? I thought our Islamic friends had Friday as their holy day so including them in the list of people who keep a weekend sabbath seems odd (talk)--BozMo 22:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

In Muslim lands (except Turkey IIRC), Friday is the weekend. In Israel, the weekend is Friday (after noon) and Saturday. Basically, the concept weekend stems from the weekly rest and not the other way around... And calling it a Sabbath is biasing the coverage towards a specific tradition. elpincha 00:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Recreation I think stemmed from children playing or re-creating what adults did. Recreation can now also include sport activities but I think "leisure" has largely taken over that aspect. -- RND   talk  14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology from www.etymonline.com

[[1]] 1390, "refreshment or curing of a person, refreshment by eating," from O.Fr. recreacion (13c.), from L. recreationem (nom. recreatio) "recovery from illness," from recreatus, pp. of recreare "to refresh, restore," from re- "again" + creare (see create). Meaning "refresh oneself by some amusement" is first recorded c.1400; abbreviated form rec is attested from 1929. Verb recreate "to refresh by physical influence" is attested from c.1560, but not now used, probably from confusion with re-create (q.v.). Recreational is from 1656.

This site is now quoted by 124 Wikipedia articles and 32 Wiktionary articles and has a link on the etymology page. I think other usable sources exist, too. Erudecorp 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leisure: Really an Umbrella Term

Recreation fits under the umbrella term of leisure. Those activities that are thought to be "active" ones and participatory are both leisuretime activities and recreational ones. Attending religious services is usually considered leisure but not recreation. However, participating in a volleyball game sponsored by a religious group is considered both leisure and recreation. Volunteerism is always considered leisure but, depending on the volunteerism done, it could recreational or non-recreational. (Examples: Group volunteer gardening around a synagogue or mosque? Recreation. Serving as a usher in a protestant or catholic church? Non-recreation but still leisure.)

[edit] Edit required?

This page is pretty rough as far a Wikipedia's standards go. I understand that it's an abstract topic, but it needs to be treated with a bit more finesse. The citation from TIME magazine about stress is a bit much (Since when does anyone listen to TIME magazine?) and also the list of sports that have become increasingly popular (BASE Jumping, Snowboarding, etc.). That is a very localized statement, and should it not be included in sport anyway?


[edit] ==

Who says that recreation is non-profitable. To "be benefitial to" is another definition of profit and recreation is very benefitial to many aspects of our lives.

[edit] legal restrictions

The legal restrictions section seems to be stretching the limits of NPOV. The phrase "arbitrarily viewed as immoral" seems especially egregious.

"...nearly all drugs that have traditionally not been widely used in European culture have been deemed illegal in most of the world."- Can someone prove that Europe's non-acceptance of hard drugs leads to the rest of the world illegalizing them? That's what this sentence implies. If that's not the case, I fail to see why it's necessary to specially mention European culture.

[edit] Amazing

I think this page is great. It may be the best page on wikipedia. And I may sound sarcastic but I'm not, I am totally serious. --Kev

---er someone has vandalized it, how does one go about reporting abuse?

[edit] Fun

I'm co-opting the redirect "Fun", but I'm quite happy to have it moved to Fun (magazine) as long as a notice is added here =) Adam Cuerden talk 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British vs. American Spelling

I noticed the caption for the girl on the tire swing spelled it "tyre" (I believe that is the British way). Is there a rule for Wikipedia English about British vs. American spellings? I'm not favoring one way or the other, I just wondered, since some people might be confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.28.140 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The rule is that if the article is about a UK topic, use UK spelling; if a U.S. topic, use U.S. spelling. If neither, whoever gets there first wins! -- Ssilvers 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Check the etymology of the word and use the more historically sound spelling. That is the foundation for current international standard spellings, not popularity. Why was the u added to colour from the original Latin color? Probably to preserve the accent on the second syllable. But no one in the UK pronounces it that way. So, color. Heuristically, it's better to preserve spelling than pronunciation, because it more often preserves the meaning and history of the word, since pronunciation shifts (see vowel shift). In the same way, the original spelling was tyre, so use tyre, unless the article specifically depends on the US popularity of the spelling tire. UK spellings tend to preserve Germanic words. US spellings tend to preserve Latin words. [[2]] Erudecorp 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun vs Recreation

Why does this article claim that fun is equeal to recreation by redirection of the word "fun" to this particular article? This is hopelessly narrowminded! Fun is so much else than that. Perhaps a seperate article for "fun" is needed. What we think is funny... humour and philosophy along with play and the thrust of human endeavor? Is fun the meaning of life? Ideas?

Yes, let's do it. The article now violates the laws of Wikipedia and humankind in general. To equate fun with recreation is (perhaps not subtly) ridiculous and silly. Erudecorp 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible (unchecked) sources:

  1. [| www.funology.com] Ironically has nothing to do with fun. Should go on scary, pedophile and list of serial killers. Along with google:fun, shows how hard it is to find rigorous, relevant truth on the subject of fun.
  2. [| Astro Fun - Ancient Art of Penis Reading] Don't call it irrelevant until you try it. Should go on penis.
  3. [| Etymology of fun]

    1685, v., "to cheat, hoax," probably a variant of M.E. fon "befool" (c.1400), later "trick, hoax, practical joke," of uncertain origin. Stigmatized by Johnson as "a low cant word." Older sense is preserved in phrase to make fun of and funny money "counterfeit bills" (1938, though this may be more for the sake of the rhyme); sense of "amusement" is 1727. See also funny.

  4. [| Halloween Costumes Are Fun For All Ages] Recent news article of something (probably erroneously) deemed fun.
  5. [| Memo from the Making Work More Fun committee] News about fun, work and a committee.
  6. [| Most Popular Work At Home Job Ideas] Popular (not rigorous) ideas of fun.
  7. [| Fun Systematically] This one is for real.

    This position paper looks at two examples where the study of fun is at very least systematic, and quite possibly scientific. In the first, Virtual Crackers, a systematic process of 'deconstructing experience' identifies the individual aspects of an experience (pulling crackers), which are then used to reconstruct a new experience in a new medium (the web). In the second, a generic question about the relationship of fun and engagement is studied through the mutation of examples, slowly changing particular abstract attributes. Neither process is perfectly automatic nor even reproducible, but both exhibit structured methodologies to find results. Scientific? You decide.

  8. [| www.answers.com/topic/fun] Read this before making a new fun article. There may already be a Fun, but called something else, like joy, enjoyment, happiness, amusement, funny, awesome, thrill, peace, sport, yay, vagabond, irreverence, etc.
  9. [| 34 Fun Quotes]
It's kind of fun to do the impossible.
~ Walt Disney (1901 - 1966)
Most of the time I don't have much fun. The rest of the time I don't have any fun at all.
~ Woody Allen (1935 - )
It is fun to be in the same decade with you.
~ Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), in a letter to Winston Churchill

^Erudecorp 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added something that might be deleted

"An example of fun could be the fact that most people viewing this article are having fun. Because it is amusing that this article even exists"

Someone might want to delete it. But honestly I think this is an ok thing to put in. So if it is deleted, I will just put it back and try to find the one who deleted it. Unless they have a good reason for it not to exist.

I deleted it. This is an article on recreation, not an article about the article on recreation. Casey Abell 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Then delete all the other examples. This isn't the article on dancing, eating and drinking, partying, hunting and fishing, hobbies or computer games. Either let the example stay, or delete those too. Using the article itself as an example is fun, making the example true twice over. Erudecorp 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Help:Reverting, WP:NPOVFAQ Casey Abell, stop deleting it. You're defenses continue to be irrelevant and wrong, so then you try another one. Stop. (In response to your latest: It is naturally a matter of opinion; that's what fun is. It is, however, neutral. The addition was not itself opinion, but about opinion. Your reverting defeats itself, because it could be called opinion, too.) Even if you have a personal issue against this, leave it alone. Deleting it is not funny. If you have a contrary statement to make for the sake of NPoV, then add it without deleting the other statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudecorp (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll AGF. "Using the Internet" is already listed as a form of recreation. Which covers any enjoyment people might get from a "Recreation" article existing in Wikipedia. Look, I appreciate that you're trying to inject some humor into the article and the talk page. If you want to write a separate "Fun" article, it's fine with me. I would advise that you write in a reasonably serious way, though, because WP articles - and talk pages - are not supposed to be stand-up comedy routines. There are lots of other places on the Internet for comedy. Casey Abell 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh? Ok, just as I thought. Wikipiedia is one of the most technical places on the net, but I can't blame wiki for that, I'll just not choose to go here anymore!

[edit] Things Have Changed

I am happy to report that I can let my children on this website once again. when I noted vandalism before, I was telling the truth. But now, the vandalism is gone and my children have been able to come on this website once and for all.


Thank you SO much Wiki!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.255.5 (talk) 01:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun ≠ Recreation

Please forgive my niavete here but is Fun synonymous with Recreation? --Knowledge is NOT a dirty word 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou speakest the truth. Fun needs its own article and is distinct from recreation. It is still good to mention fun in the recreation article, but they shouldn't be the same. Erudecorp 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The fun article should itself be fun and not boring, just as all articles differ depending on their subject matter. The irony of a boring fun article is inappropriate. Erudecorp 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So should the puke article make me puke? Should the sad article make me cry? Erudecorp 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Touché. Erudecorp 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You're both idiots! Of course the fun article should be fun, the vomit article should help you not vomit, and the sad article should help you not be sad. Wikipedia should not be unhelpful. The double-negative cancles out. So, Wikipedia should be helpful, and those looking for fun on Wikipedia should find it. What about those who call fun bad and confine their definition of fun to vain, idle and unproductive acts? Can't work or school be fun? Is only recreation fun? Is recreation ever not fun? Is unfun recreation still either? Erudecorp 04:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry...

...to spoil Erudecorp's fun (or recreation), but this edit summary won't tempt me into an edit war. But this article has already seen enough nonsense. Can we please stop adding more gibberish, both in the article and the talk page? Casey Abell 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)