This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
... with detailed examples of lots of different types of humour, but clearly the Wikinazis have been at it culling away all the best bits. Does anyone know of a backup site of the article, or a diff from when it was more detailed? Saint91 ( talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the table of contents. Is it good to take off "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (October 2011)"? Njaohnt ( talk) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In a single edit, Smithriedel has replaced the whole contents of this article with his own. The new article is decent and sourced, but so was the old one. I haven't gone through all the details, but the lede of the new version reads a bit more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. But that's not my main concern.
Replacing articles wholesale tends to violate WP:OWN. This drastic change was done without talk page discussion; other editors did not get a chance to participate. What was wrong with the old version? What is better with the new? How could the old be so poor to have nothing worth salvaging?
I'm tempted to revert, but I'll wait to see if anyone else has concerns. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am (and I suspect others, too) extremely ambivalent with respect to the two versions. Both have their strong sides. Looking at the history of edits of user:Smithriedel, I noticed he is an author of a few, but very thorough contributions. There are plenty of reasons why a wikipedian prefers to be a "Lone Ranger", and I don't think that WP:OWN is an issue here. I sincerely hope that Smithriedel will undertake the changing of the tone of their text. On the other hand I see nothing inherently wrong with Smithriedel's complete rewrite the article was begging for, and for a very long time.
Now, answering the valid questions of User:A D Monroe III
My conclusions:
Therefore I am in favor of the new version. I would gladly have undertaken the "merging" of the texts, but unfortunately English is not my first language, and in article like this one the writer must command a good prose. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
SmithRiedel: I was careful to incorporate all the relevant info from the old article into this one. See list of joke cycles. I also limited the topic, needed, to be only jokes, not performance comedy. That needs to be under its own heading. I will start an RfC once I have found out how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriedel ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote the Joke article, it is a topic that I have worked on as a Folklorist. The first and main problem is that the original article had not correctly defined what a joke is; it does not include everything funny. That was done in the lede. I then, according to current research in linguistics, psychology, folkloristics, ethnography, etc., explained what a joke is. If there are problems in the style, I will be happy to work with editors to correct these. My goal is for accurate information, cleanly described. I think that my rewrite of the Joke article does this. Smithriedel ( talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)smithriedel Smithriedel ( talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: the new version written by Smithriedel is here. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I was careful to incorporate all the relevant info from the old article into this one. See list of joke cycles. I also limited the topic, needed, to be only jokes, not performance comedy. That needs to be under its own heading. Smithriedel ( talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)smithriedel Smithriedel ( talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thanks for your feedback. I will make the style corrections as suggested by Escape Orbit and post the new version. I am traveling this week, so it may take a few days. Smithriedel ( talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)smithriedel Smithriedel ( talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The frame analysis article link doesn't seem appropriate. — MaxEnt 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There should be a section about jokes on the internet, and how many are purely an internet phenomenon. Here's a good source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:C2C4:5B00:B51A:4510:37C2:F62B ( talk) 00:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The source of the 1900 BC Sumerian and 1600 BC Egyptian jokes is very shaky. Nearly all of the claims made in that paragraph are not even tangentially mentioned in the original source, and even if it was the article is not credible whatsoever. It's a 2008 Reuters article that references a now-deleted article written for online comedy channel DaveTV. The article was written by Paul McDonald, a professor of creative writing at the University of Wolverhampton with minimal research experience and no experience in archaeology or history. There is simply no credible evidence to say that the Sumerian is the "oldest identified joke" without at least a preamble of "It is commonly believed" or "It is suggested by Dr Paul McDonald." Furthermore, I tried and failed to find any dating of the Sumerian proverb in particular.
This being said I've identified sources for the jokes from their original sources or academic compilations.
Sumerian Proverb: A compilation of sumerian proverbs that includes the one referenced in the article
Egyptian aside: From the third story of the Westcar Papyrus
Conkaeso ( talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Bangla Jokes refer to the jokes told by the Bengali or Bangla speaking people living in Bangladesh, India ( West Bengal, Tripura, and Asam provinces), and even in UK, USA, and the Middle East.
The Bengalis love to tell and listen to jokes whenever they are in light mood. It is their age old tradition. Jesters like Gopal Bhar, Mullah Nasiruddin Hozza, and Birbal are very popular among the Bengalis.
There are mainly two types of Bangla Jokes: Koutuk (takes several minutes to tell) and Chutki (quick joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahelala ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CURRENT: The earliest extant joke book is the Philogelos (Greek for The Laughter-Lover), a collection of 265 jokes written in crude ancient Greek dating to the fourth or fifth century AD.[4][5] The author of the collection is obscure
PROPOSED: The earliest extant joke book is the Philogelos (Greek for The Laughter-Lover), a collection of 265 jokes written in crude ancient Greek dating to the fourth or fifth century AD.[4][5] The earliest-known Chinese joke book, Forest of Laughs (Xiaolin), ascribed to Handan Chun, dates to the 3rd century AD and is partially extant in the anthology Taiping guangji.[6] The author of Philogelos is obscure
[6] Christopher Rea, The Age of Irreverence: A New History of Laughter in China (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2015), p. 21. 72.165.143.34 ( talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|answered=
from "yes" to "no".
Alucard 16
❯❯❯ chat? 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Hello, I am a little puzzled about the meaning of ‘joke’. It seems that in Dutch, we have two terms which could both translated to ‘joke’:
The present article and SmithRiedel’s comments above suggest that ‘joke’ has approximately the same, narrow meaning as ‘mop’. However the Dutch word ‘grap’ would also often be translated with ‘joke’. Until I read this article, I had the impression that the English word could have the broader meaning as well. Note that the interwiki link at the moment leads to nl:Grap instead of nl:Mop (taal).
It could be possible that the article describes the term ‘joke’ as defined by folklorists and other scholars, while it is used in a broader meaning as well in everyday language. If that is the case, the difference between jargon and everyday language should be mentioned somewhere in my opinion..
It could also be the case that English does simply just not have a single word for the broader meaning I described. Or it may have another word for it that I am not aware of.
Can somebody enlighten me? Bever ( talk) 06:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the context in English, "joke" can mean "grap" or "mop". (Therefore, the word "joke" acts just like the word "grap".) The problem in English is finding a word for "mop"; we have either no word for that or too many words for it (all of them too specific), depending on how you look at it. This article is flawed, because the categories are mentioned - but then the writers ignore some categories. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
a joke sometimes doesn't end in a punchline, for example, an image of corn & someone says "if the sun was hotter, it would be popcorn" or there are jokes that most people don't get, such as "I did a roof eating today" (this is not meant to be info for the article, as it is a comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBoy32904 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Multiple Jokes are defined in which there are no words, as an example a silent gag is often considered a Joke however has no words. Other types of non-verbal Jokes also exist. I think the best solution is to hit the books and look for scholarly definition, the Dictionary agrees with the current interpretation whilst other scholarly citations state a Joke does not need to be in spoken form. Thoughts? Des Vallee ( talk) 05:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Its not funny 2604:2D80:B18F:C800:F115:9194:694C:482D ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph repeats itself word for word unnecessarily, I'd fix it myself but it's semi-protected
"It takes the form of a story, usually with dialogue, and ends in a punch line. It is in the punch line that the audience becomes aware that the story contains a second, conflicting meaning. This can be done using a pun or other word play such as irony or sarcasm, a logical incompatibility, nonsense, or other means. Linguist Robert Hetzron offers the definition.[1] It takes the form of a story, usually with dialogue, and ends in a punch line. It is in the punch line that the audience becomes aware that the story contains a second, conflicting meaning. This can be done using a pun or other word play such as irony or sarcasm, a logical incompatibility, nonsense, or other means. Linguist Robert Hetzron offers the definition: " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.31.39.157 ( talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The nature of a cycle is that it's a set sequence in which the ending leads back to the beginning. If the correct order isn't essential, and if the ending doesn't necessarily cause a return to the start, it's not a cycle. Elephant jokes, for example, could be called a category, a set, a genre, a theme, a collection, etc ... but there's no way to call them a cycle. (It should be possible to choose and/or create a specific subset of elephant jokes that do form a cycle - for example the blue elephant/blue gun group seems like it could be made into a cycle, and it probably has been - but such a cycle certainly wouldn't include all the elephant jokes in existence.) So ... can we please drop the use of "cycle" and switch to a better word? TooManyFingers ( talk) 08:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Anticipating one potential response: if a trusted source says "A cat is a type of chicken that has legs instead of wings", then you stop trusting that source, and you go and find another source who knows what they're talking about. :) If the mistake comes from an otherwise uniquely excellent source, just correct their one mistake and keep everything else they said. TooManyFingers ( talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I simply argue that when a source provides demonstrably false information, compounding their mistake by continuing to rely on that piece of information after it's been shown to be false is not a good idea.
My "reliable source" is that I know what the word "cycle" means, and I suppose that you probably do too, and "loosely-defined changeable collection of bits of thematically-related material" isn't it. :) TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
At least one source claims it originated as a promotional campaign for someone's joke book in the mid 1990s. Should the day be in the article? TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
In the "Classification systems" section, we have this:
obsolete actors (e.g., numbskull)
But is the stock "numbskull character" really obsolete? The word itself is out of fashion, but it seems to me that the concept is still in use. Regardless of fashion and regardless of moral issues, people find ways to continue to ridicule each other. TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Pound's very short poem In A Station of the Metro seems to me to match all of the structures and functions described in the "Telling Jokes / Punchline" section of this article, including the most important one - the listener or reader has to retrospectively reinterpret the "setup" after they hear the "punchline". Pound even stuck (extremely strictly) to the direction that the narrative must be kept succinct. It seems to me that the only difference is that this poem isn't funny but a good joke is funny. I think carefully comparing this "pseudo-joke" (a correctly constructed and fully functional joke whose effect is analogous to humour but isn't humour) with real jokes might lead to a clearer understanding of what "funny" actually is. TooManyFingers ( talk) 17:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.115.104.32 ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
On the electronic section, the letter a in " a :-)" links to the smileys article. I think only the smiley should. 96.8.248.148 ( talk) 10:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Funny jokes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 24 § Funny jokes until a consensus is reached. QuietCicada - Talk 21:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
... with detailed examples of lots of different types of humour, but clearly the Wikinazis have been at it culling away all the best bits. Does anyone know of a backup site of the article, or a diff from when it was more detailed? Saint91 ( talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the table of contents. Is it good to take off "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (October 2011)"? Njaohnt ( talk) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In a single edit, Smithriedel has replaced the whole contents of this article with his own. The new article is decent and sourced, but so was the old one. I haven't gone through all the details, but the lede of the new version reads a bit more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. But that's not my main concern.
Replacing articles wholesale tends to violate WP:OWN. This drastic change was done without talk page discussion; other editors did not get a chance to participate. What was wrong with the old version? What is better with the new? How could the old be so poor to have nothing worth salvaging?
I'm tempted to revert, but I'll wait to see if anyone else has concerns. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am (and I suspect others, too) extremely ambivalent with respect to the two versions. Both have their strong sides. Looking at the history of edits of user:Smithriedel, I noticed he is an author of a few, but very thorough contributions. There are plenty of reasons why a wikipedian prefers to be a "Lone Ranger", and I don't think that WP:OWN is an issue here. I sincerely hope that Smithriedel will undertake the changing of the tone of their text. On the other hand I see nothing inherently wrong with Smithriedel's complete rewrite the article was begging for, and for a very long time.
Now, answering the valid questions of User:A D Monroe III
My conclusions:
Therefore I am in favor of the new version. I would gladly have undertaken the "merging" of the texts, but unfortunately English is not my first language, and in article like this one the writer must command a good prose. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
SmithRiedel: I was careful to incorporate all the relevant info from the old article into this one. See list of joke cycles. I also limited the topic, needed, to be only jokes, not performance comedy. That needs to be under its own heading. I will start an RfC once I have found out how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriedel ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote the Joke article, it is a topic that I have worked on as a Folklorist. The first and main problem is that the original article had not correctly defined what a joke is; it does not include everything funny. That was done in the lede. I then, according to current research in linguistics, psychology, folkloristics, ethnography, etc., explained what a joke is. If there are problems in the style, I will be happy to work with editors to correct these. My goal is for accurate information, cleanly described. I think that my rewrite of the Joke article does this. Smithriedel ( talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)smithriedel Smithriedel ( talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: the new version written by Smithriedel is here. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I was careful to incorporate all the relevant info from the old article into this one. See list of joke cycles. I also limited the topic, needed, to be only jokes, not performance comedy. That needs to be under its own heading. Smithriedel ( talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)smithriedel Smithriedel ( talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thanks for your feedback. I will make the style corrections as suggested by Escape Orbit and post the new version. I am traveling this week, so it may take a few days. Smithriedel ( talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)smithriedel Smithriedel ( talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The frame analysis article link doesn't seem appropriate. — MaxEnt 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There should be a section about jokes on the internet, and how many are purely an internet phenomenon. Here's a good source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:C2C4:5B00:B51A:4510:37C2:F62B ( talk) 00:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The source of the 1900 BC Sumerian and 1600 BC Egyptian jokes is very shaky. Nearly all of the claims made in that paragraph are not even tangentially mentioned in the original source, and even if it was the article is not credible whatsoever. It's a 2008 Reuters article that references a now-deleted article written for online comedy channel DaveTV. The article was written by Paul McDonald, a professor of creative writing at the University of Wolverhampton with minimal research experience and no experience in archaeology or history. There is simply no credible evidence to say that the Sumerian is the "oldest identified joke" without at least a preamble of "It is commonly believed" or "It is suggested by Dr Paul McDonald." Furthermore, I tried and failed to find any dating of the Sumerian proverb in particular.
This being said I've identified sources for the jokes from their original sources or academic compilations.
Sumerian Proverb: A compilation of sumerian proverbs that includes the one referenced in the article
Egyptian aside: From the third story of the Westcar Papyrus
Conkaeso ( talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Bangla Jokes refer to the jokes told by the Bengali or Bangla speaking people living in Bangladesh, India ( West Bengal, Tripura, and Asam provinces), and even in UK, USA, and the Middle East.
The Bengalis love to tell and listen to jokes whenever they are in light mood. It is their age old tradition. Jesters like Gopal Bhar, Mullah Nasiruddin Hozza, and Birbal are very popular among the Bengalis.
There are mainly two types of Bangla Jokes: Koutuk (takes several minutes to tell) and Chutki (quick joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahelala ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CURRENT: The earliest extant joke book is the Philogelos (Greek for The Laughter-Lover), a collection of 265 jokes written in crude ancient Greek dating to the fourth or fifth century AD.[4][5] The author of the collection is obscure
PROPOSED: The earliest extant joke book is the Philogelos (Greek for The Laughter-Lover), a collection of 265 jokes written in crude ancient Greek dating to the fourth or fifth century AD.[4][5] The earliest-known Chinese joke book, Forest of Laughs (Xiaolin), ascribed to Handan Chun, dates to the 3rd century AD and is partially extant in the anthology Taiping guangji.[6] The author of Philogelos is obscure
[6] Christopher Rea, The Age of Irreverence: A New History of Laughter in China (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2015), p. 21. 72.165.143.34 ( talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|answered=
from "yes" to "no".
Alucard 16
❯❯❯ chat? 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Hello, I am a little puzzled about the meaning of ‘joke’. It seems that in Dutch, we have two terms which could both translated to ‘joke’:
The present article and SmithRiedel’s comments above suggest that ‘joke’ has approximately the same, narrow meaning as ‘mop’. However the Dutch word ‘grap’ would also often be translated with ‘joke’. Until I read this article, I had the impression that the English word could have the broader meaning as well. Note that the interwiki link at the moment leads to nl:Grap instead of nl:Mop (taal).
It could be possible that the article describes the term ‘joke’ as defined by folklorists and other scholars, while it is used in a broader meaning as well in everyday language. If that is the case, the difference between jargon and everyday language should be mentioned somewhere in my opinion..
It could also be the case that English does simply just not have a single word for the broader meaning I described. Or it may have another word for it that I am not aware of.
Can somebody enlighten me? Bever ( talk) 06:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the context in English, "joke" can mean "grap" or "mop". (Therefore, the word "joke" acts just like the word "grap".) The problem in English is finding a word for "mop"; we have either no word for that or too many words for it (all of them too specific), depending on how you look at it. This article is flawed, because the categories are mentioned - but then the writers ignore some categories. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
a joke sometimes doesn't end in a punchline, for example, an image of corn & someone says "if the sun was hotter, it would be popcorn" or there are jokes that most people don't get, such as "I did a roof eating today" (this is not meant to be info for the article, as it is a comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBoy32904 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Multiple Jokes are defined in which there are no words, as an example a silent gag is often considered a Joke however has no words. Other types of non-verbal Jokes also exist. I think the best solution is to hit the books and look for scholarly definition, the Dictionary agrees with the current interpretation whilst other scholarly citations state a Joke does not need to be in spoken form. Thoughts? Des Vallee ( talk) 05:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Its not funny 2604:2D80:B18F:C800:F115:9194:694C:482D ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph repeats itself word for word unnecessarily, I'd fix it myself but it's semi-protected
"It takes the form of a story, usually with dialogue, and ends in a punch line. It is in the punch line that the audience becomes aware that the story contains a second, conflicting meaning. This can be done using a pun or other word play such as irony or sarcasm, a logical incompatibility, nonsense, or other means. Linguist Robert Hetzron offers the definition.[1] It takes the form of a story, usually with dialogue, and ends in a punch line. It is in the punch line that the audience becomes aware that the story contains a second, conflicting meaning. This can be done using a pun or other word play such as irony or sarcasm, a logical incompatibility, nonsense, or other means. Linguist Robert Hetzron offers the definition: " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.31.39.157 ( talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The nature of a cycle is that it's a set sequence in which the ending leads back to the beginning. If the correct order isn't essential, and if the ending doesn't necessarily cause a return to the start, it's not a cycle. Elephant jokes, for example, could be called a category, a set, a genre, a theme, a collection, etc ... but there's no way to call them a cycle. (It should be possible to choose and/or create a specific subset of elephant jokes that do form a cycle - for example the blue elephant/blue gun group seems like it could be made into a cycle, and it probably has been - but such a cycle certainly wouldn't include all the elephant jokes in existence.) So ... can we please drop the use of "cycle" and switch to a better word? TooManyFingers ( talk) 08:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Anticipating one potential response: if a trusted source says "A cat is a type of chicken that has legs instead of wings", then you stop trusting that source, and you go and find another source who knows what they're talking about. :) If the mistake comes from an otherwise uniquely excellent source, just correct their one mistake and keep everything else they said. TooManyFingers ( talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I simply argue that when a source provides demonstrably false information, compounding their mistake by continuing to rely on that piece of information after it's been shown to be false is not a good idea.
My "reliable source" is that I know what the word "cycle" means, and I suppose that you probably do too, and "loosely-defined changeable collection of bits of thematically-related material" isn't it. :) TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
At least one source claims it originated as a promotional campaign for someone's joke book in the mid 1990s. Should the day be in the article? TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
In the "Classification systems" section, we have this:
obsolete actors (e.g., numbskull)
But is the stock "numbskull character" really obsolete? The word itself is out of fashion, but it seems to me that the concept is still in use. Regardless of fashion and regardless of moral issues, people find ways to continue to ridicule each other. TooManyFingers ( talk) 14:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Pound's very short poem In A Station of the Metro seems to me to match all of the structures and functions described in the "Telling Jokes / Punchline" section of this article, including the most important one - the listener or reader has to retrospectively reinterpret the "setup" after they hear the "punchline". Pound even stuck (extremely strictly) to the direction that the narrative must be kept succinct. It seems to me that the only difference is that this poem isn't funny but a good joke is funny. I think carefully comparing this "pseudo-joke" (a correctly constructed and fully functional joke whose effect is analogous to humour but isn't humour) with real jokes might lead to a clearer understanding of what "funny" actually is. TooManyFingers ( talk) 17:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.115.104.32 ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
On the electronic section, the letter a in " a :-)" links to the smileys article. I think only the smiley should. 96.8.248.148 ( talk) 10:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Funny jokes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 24 § Funny jokes until a consensus is reached. QuietCicada - Talk 21:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)