Talk:Theory of humor

Publication List Merger proposal

Oppose. In wikipedia, it is a standard practice to split long articles into shorter ones, not vice versa. The list is huge and will continue to grow.The new article is also has unlimited possibilities to grow. `'Míkka >t 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support/compromise. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. I think you're right though about leaving more room for the list to grow and grow. Perhaps the solution will be to create a section and select some "KEY PUBLICATIONS" that will remain rather constant for this page, and the direct to the list page you made for a complete list. What do you think? B. Mistler 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the wikipedia policies in wikipedia:Attribution. During the growth of the article, it will naturally incorporate many of the books from the list as necessary references, and you will not have to have a section "Selected publications" or something. And you don't really need it now, since the complete list is one mouse click away. I was planning to supply the list of books with brief annotations, based on published book reviews, but unfortunately there is a huge amount of work to be done in wikipedia. 'Míkka >t 01:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, congratulations with the decision to take on this badly missing topic. While many wikipedians have sense of humor and love it (both humor and their sense of humor :-), but no one had real desire to work on it. I will gladly help you with article formatting and other advice regarding wikipedia rules and traditions. But unfortunately I have no expertise to undertake such a broad topic (while I did wrote several smaller wikipedia articles on humor). `'Míkka >t 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hold no particular glory for the compiled list of publications. I have created it as a "stash" for quick response to numerous attempts to delete articles about humor and jokes in wikipedia. It is amazing how people are not aware that theory of humor is a well-developed discipline (although without an ultimate answer yet). `'Míkka >t 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And, I want to say how very thorough and impressive the list of publications you developed is. I've done some research and taught courses in the area of Humor and Humor theory (mostly from psychological or philosophical perspectives), so I'm interested in the topic. That said, I can't put this article together myself, but thought I would at least get some some structure and the ball rolling. Thanks for your offer of help. I really appreciate it! B. Mistler 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy ???

I don't think this page should be included in the philosophy navigation template. The fact that some philosophers may have said interesting things about humour doesn't mean that there is anything philosophical about the study of humour. Although a few major philosophers are mentioned on the Theory of Humour page, I can't see any of their works cited in the List of publications in humor research. The only names I recognize are psychologists and sociologists. --RichardVeryard (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]