Template talk:Humor

Text

The text of this template was not demonstrating a sense of humor so I lightened it up a bit. Now it only scares you into thinking that humor is dangerous if the person leaving the template intentionally includes a 'blockable' flag. +sj + 18:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would it be possible to be able to embed the {{who?}} template as an option in this one? That would be funny.--otherlleft (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Funny Anymore

I think that by the time you're done reading this, you're less likely to find the humorous article funny. In my experience, jokes that start with some version of, "get ready everybody, what you're about to hear a humorous statement," are not very funny.

One thing we might do is just move this template to the bottom of articles. Perhaps we could note that in the main template page and move this to the bottom of articles in a systematic way. Or am I the only person who this really bothers? —mako๛ 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I just remove the template when I can. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 –SJ+ 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed the wording

From "is kept because it is considered humorous" to "is considered humorous". Any thoughts and/or objections? Abeg92contribs 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's good that this change was reverted and has stayed that way, since half the point of this template is that the tagged page should not be nominated for deletion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Parameter for AFD?

Could we please get a parameter that we can use to change the category from the general (>900 pages) humor cat to the April Fool's Day category (ought to have >200 of these pages)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Humor icon

• Draft:Template:Humor icon

Draft:Template:Humor icon

A version for comments, instead of marking entire pages -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this (and the original's been deleted anyway, oddly enough as a G13), so I went ahead and created an inline version myself. See Template:Humor note. — Gestrid (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Namespace check

Wbm1058, I'm confused by this edit. Why is a {{talk other}} test needed in the "main" parameter? Shouldn't that parameter only be evaluated in article space? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused too. I patrol for pages in the talk namespace that transclude {{error}} and found that the pages trancluding {{humor}} 16 pages were also transcluding errors. My patch stopped that from happening. As to why that's necessary, I think it has to do with how {{Category handler}} works. That in turn uses Module:Category handler, which is something of a black box to me as I'm not super fluent in Lua. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Categorization failure on templates

Anyone clear on why this isn't working at Template:Puke? I'm not seeing any code in there that would make it not categorize in the template namespace (though if {{Humor}} were put in the Template:Puke/doc, the category handler's blacklist might interfere with it, since it blacklists subpages. But even that sounds iffy; it should still work when transcluded into Template:Puke. Regardless, {{Puke}} doesn't have a /doc page; it uses {{Documentation|content=}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: It should more narrowly categorize in Category:Wikipedia humor templates for template namespace, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: Adding |template=[[Category:Wikipedia humor templates]]|{{PAGENAME}}]] to the categorization code worked. However, this still suggests that it's not going to do anything in various other namespaces, when it looks like it should default to Category:Wikipedia humor except in mainspace and talk namespaces. But maybe I just need more coffee or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree that it should default to adding transcluded items to Category:Wikipedia humor. I created a test page at User:Daask/sandbox/Humor test. Does anyone disagree or is this just a technical problem? Daask (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's not categorizing as expected. :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Currently, the entirety of "contains material… humorous" is linked to Wikipedia:Humor. I propose that the every word except "humourous" be delinked because the other words are not germane to the message, and for the word "contains" to be unbolded because it is a verb, whereas "material... humorous" constitutes a phrase. It would then be like: "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humourous". Thank you, NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Can be reverted on request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Another edit request

I propose further simplifying the template's wording so that the first line reads "This page contains humorous material.", or "This section..." if the section parameter is set to true. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka, that change seems good to me. Perhaps the current wording was meant to allow for material considered humorous but not actually humorous, but I don't think we have to be that cagey. I'll wait a bit to give others a chance to comment, but if in 24hr it still looks like we have consensus, ping me and I'll implement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

To editors Sdkb and NotReallySoroka: maybe not entirely, as the "...contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous" also gives explicit info as to why the page has been kept. So if it must be altered, I would prefer something like, "This page has been kept because it contains humorous material." I know that's not that much simpler, and yet I think the part about being kept is integral to {{Humor}}'s meaning and should not be discarded. Maybe it would be best to leave it as is, since it certainly does no harm to do so. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth, did there used to be a problem with humor pages getting deleted? I imagine that if someone tried to XfD a humor essay, someone would quickly chime in and say, "it's humor, which boosts editor retention," and it'd snow keep. If there's no actual problem being addressed by the extra words, I'd favor shortening for conciseness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been here long enough to know the history. Just know that the wording has been like this almost since it was created, and I think it is concise enough. We seem to need more editors to be involved to garner a solid, meaningful consensus, and that should be done before the usage of tper. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:DOF. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Tper disabled pending further discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 14:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth and Sdkb: I propose an RfC with the following four options:

1. "This page contains humorous material." (neither "consider" or "kept")
2. "This page contains material considered humorous." (only "considered" is included)
3. "This page contains material that is kept because it is humorous." (only "kept" is mentioned)
4. "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous." (status quo, both "considered" and "kept")

What do you think? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

An RFC seems a bit heavyweight for this. Maybe wait a while first for more comment here. For myself I'll just say that if the template asserts that material is humorous (instead of being considered humorous), we'll get people arguing all the time over whether this or that is actually humorous. (Considered humorous only requires someone to think it's humorous.) EEng 05:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Add {Not Humor} tag to prevent confusion

I can definitely see a situation in which someone thinks this template applies to the template page itself. To prevent any confusion, there should be a {Not Humor} tag at the top of the page. InterGraphenic (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As a technical matter, we can't add a note at the top of the page. We can only add content underneath the displayed template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)