This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Removed:
Sorry, but that claim's just not going to wash without some good evidence. Frankly, I doubt you'll be able to provide it, seeing that truly groundbreaking sites tend to get discovered and publicised by the mainstream media at some stage (Wikipedia, for instance :) ) and none of the long-time contributors here seem to ever have heard of Gamefoolz before. -- Robert Merkel
Good call, Robert. Now, I've loosely supported the notion of the
Gamefoolz article on Wikipedia, but if they start pulling stuff like this, I'm going to get annoyed. --
Jimbo Wales
I agree completely... -- LMS
What's up with all these / pages of jokes? I say we should move all these / pages to the meta but keep the article on internet humor. -- maveric149
maveric - if you want the real reason for this page, it was the result of an off-'pedia discussion between Larry and I about "what would generate traffic". Fact is, these pages do generate hits. More importantly, there really isn't a truly dynamic resource for internet humour (as defined here) anywhere on the web, and it does deserve to be recognised. I'd like to keep it. Obviously the backslash dates from the days when that was our only alternative. - User:MMGB
If its OK with you its OK with me (following my above reasoning somebody else might want to remove the Wikipedia Cookbook which is only marginally encyclopedic). Pages still need some TLC though. -- maveric149
Well, considering long-standing humour with good evidentiary backing, I was surprised that it had no reference to collaborative humour on the Internet, which is the first thing I think about when I hear the phrase "Internet humour." Generally, stuff that starts out in some newsgroup and grows into a recognized subculture. The Internet Oracle, The Jargon File, Kibology. Anybody remember other long-running communities defined around humour on the internet such as the above? I also put in a new article on the Oracle. It's sort of sketchy, and could use a lot of rounding out. -- mzamora
Copied over from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:
[... subpages voted for deletion listed here ...]
After a week of discussion, most of the subpages were deleted and the rest moved. Encyclopedic information in Goodtimes Virus Warning was already in Goodtimes virus. Former subpages that remain (and have been moved) are You have two cows, Lightbulb joke, and Honor system virus. -- Minesweeper 07:24 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Do we need to link to every site that hosts a copy of the million of old jokes around? Anyone against original content? And, what's with the descriptions like "best humor site"? Is that the official wikipedia opinion? Some links lead to sites that are not working. And, if your site is pop-up hell you really think you should get a link from here? I deleted a whole load of external links. More should really go if someone else has the heart. MansonP
http://www.funnyx.org Lindarx ( talk) 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed a link to http://www.jokes.org.au/ in the References section, but my change was reverted without explanation. I don't see how it belongs as a reference, since I don't see it mentioned in the article. Wmahan . 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
saying that the darwin awards are internet humor is a contradiction due to the fact that they have a copyright. (ie, you cant use the exact text from www.darwinawards.com) and it states earlier in the artical that this would be "humor on the internet" not "internet humor" Bummerdude62 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Removed:
Sorry, but that claim's just not going to wash without some good evidence. Frankly, I doubt you'll be able to provide it, seeing that truly groundbreaking sites tend to get discovered and publicised by the mainstream media at some stage (Wikipedia, for instance :) ) and none of the long-time contributors here seem to ever have heard of Gamefoolz before. -- Robert Merkel
Good call, Robert. Now, I've loosely supported the notion of the
Gamefoolz article on Wikipedia, but if they start pulling stuff like this, I'm going to get annoyed. --
Jimbo Wales
I agree completely... -- LMS
What's up with all these / pages of jokes? I say we should move all these / pages to the meta but keep the article on internet humor. -- maveric149
maveric - if you want the real reason for this page, it was the result of an off-'pedia discussion between Larry and I about "what would generate traffic". Fact is, these pages do generate hits. More importantly, there really isn't a truly dynamic resource for internet humour (as defined here) anywhere on the web, and it does deserve to be recognised. I'd like to keep it. Obviously the backslash dates from the days when that was our only alternative. - User:MMGB
If its OK with you its OK with me (following my above reasoning somebody else might want to remove the Wikipedia Cookbook which is only marginally encyclopedic). Pages still need some TLC though. -- maveric149
Well, considering long-standing humour with good evidentiary backing, I was surprised that it had no reference to collaborative humour on the Internet, which is the first thing I think about when I hear the phrase "Internet humour." Generally, stuff that starts out in some newsgroup and grows into a recognized subculture. The Internet Oracle, The Jargon File, Kibology. Anybody remember other long-running communities defined around humour on the internet such as the above? I also put in a new article on the Oracle. It's sort of sketchy, and could use a lot of rounding out. -- mzamora
Copied over from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:
[... subpages voted for deletion listed here ...]
After a week of discussion, most of the subpages were deleted and the rest moved. Encyclopedic information in Goodtimes Virus Warning was already in Goodtimes virus. Former subpages that remain (and have been moved) are You have two cows, Lightbulb joke, and Honor system virus. -- Minesweeper 07:24 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Do we need to link to every site that hosts a copy of the million of old jokes around? Anyone against original content? And, what's with the descriptions like "best humor site"? Is that the official wikipedia opinion? Some links lead to sites that are not working. And, if your site is pop-up hell you really think you should get a link from here? I deleted a whole load of external links. More should really go if someone else has the heart. MansonP
http://www.funnyx.org Lindarx ( talk) 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed a link to http://www.jokes.org.au/ in the References section, but my change was reverted without explanation. I don't see how it belongs as a reference, since I don't see it mentioned in the article. Wmahan . 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
saying that the darwin awards are internet humor is a contradiction due to the fact that they have a copyright. (ie, you cant use the exact text from www.darwinawards.com) and it states earlier in the artical that this would be "humor on the internet" not "internet humor" Bummerdude62 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)