I expect that this discussion has been had before, but should we really be adding whole-board openings like https://online-go.com/joseki/98 to OGS Joseki? It seems like a misuse of the tool to me.
If people want to look up openings then Waltheri is a much superior alternative (although, the same remark can be made about joseki, barring to an extent the hypermodern sequences.)
There is a category where a sequence can be marked “Fuseki” in OJE because mostly of “you know, why not?”
Josekipedia also has it, which is a benchmark.
I guess there is an ideological schism between “You know, why not?” and “But why, though?” My image is one of a streamlined and focused tool that knows what it’s there for, and yours seems to be of a wide-ranging functionality that expands into peripheries.
I take issue with using Josekipedia as a benchmark because, in my opinion, it’s fallen deeply into the pitfalls of a poorly-planned joseki explorer. It’s severely bloated and full of misinformation.
Yes, well, on the whole OJE is ironically largely curated under the guidelines of “good well-sourced sequences only”.
The fuseki that got in there were kind of an experiment. Maybe not so much “you know, why not” but more “let’s see what its like”.
None of the current contributors has been interested in extending it, so arguably the few that are in there could be culled for clarity of mission!
I suggested before adding the traditional handicap positions 2-9 stones as a tenuki option. The only problem with adding stones one by one is the disconnect between 5-6-7 stone handicaps ( the tengen stone gets moved and put back).
Thought it would be a nice reference or easter egg if you will 
I came across this again, while looking for another post so bump.
I’m actually not against the beginnings of fuseki on OJE. For instance, joseki in the context of a fuseki are quite interesting. Like 3-4 approach moves in the Chinese and Kobayashi openings are interesting, or some of the ways to play against sanrensei etc.
If they are added, my suggestion would be it is just the first 5-6 moves of the fuseki - enough to get to the point where it has been named (Sanrensei, low/high/mini/micro Chinese, kobayashi, etc… maybe even historic Shusaku?)
Then after the first 5 or 6 moves, the approach move/invasion etc that starts a joseki links to the position where it is already in the database, but not as part of a fuseki. So what I mean would be, say you approach the corner in Sanrensei, and a pincer is common, it just links to that pincer joseki without the whole board stones. That way it would minimize the amount of overlap/re-inputting of joseki, but still would link certain joseki to certain fuseki.
All of those openings have disappeared from professional play. I added them for legacy purposes, but I think that the old continuations are beyond the scope of the dictionary. @Eugene might correct me on that.
I didn’t realise the fuseki were already there
Some were put in experimentally early on.
This conversation is therefore about whether this was a good experiment or not 
My complaint about OJE is that not many variations have explanatory text.
While I think openings require less explanation than joseki because you get a sense of what black and white want on the board at the end of the sequence, I don’t think a joseki-focused interface and explorer is suitable for fuseki.
It would make more sense to me if fuseki were organized into categories like “black wants influence”, “black wants a balance of territory and influence”, “territory focus”, “post Alpha Go”, “popular with 5-3”, “peaceful” etc as you actually want to have a fuseki or game plan before starting the game. (Those were just They also depend on your mood, and aren’t as reactionary as joseki.
Anyway, I think it’s a really good idea for OGS to have fuseki, but I think OGS can do better than stuffing fuseki into the joseki explorer.