Talk:Joke

This article used to be brilliant...

... 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)

Could this be it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joke&diff=269513299&oldid=267158035 You get these from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joke&action=history Njaohnt (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it

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)

Completely rewritten!

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)

After weeks with no support, I've reverted all changes, per WP:OWN and WP:BRD. We need consensus to remove all user contributions before this rewrite. I suggest Smithriedel start an RfC for this so we can get multiple editors involved and form a consensus -- for, against, or (more likely) something in-between. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this otherwise I would have commented. Broadly agree with you. I'd urge Smithriedel to not despair, as his/her changes were not all bad (and very good in places) but they did have a few significant issues, chiefly due to it being written like an essay;

• Don't address the reader directly "you" and "us". This is not an discussion between reader and writer.
• Don't describe what the article is in the lead. The article is an entry in an encyclopedia, it doesn't need introduced any differently.
• Don't editorialise. The reader decides what is interesting and important, on the basis of what is described. The writer shouldn't be telling them.
• Everything should be written in a neutral tone. Don't voice opinions unless you can cite them to an excellent source, no matter how slight.
• The article is written in UK English. Don't change its regional style without reason.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 31 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

• What was wrong with the old version?
  • It is chaotic, begging for citation for years, full of lacunae, a collection of disconnected quotations from authorities (resembling trivia sections), poor connection to general theory of humor.
• What is better with the new?
  • Coherent narration, broader coverage, better footnoting, much more content, including recent developments.
• How could the old be so poor to have nothing worth salvaging?
  • Don't exaggerate: there is a significant overlap between the two contents. If something important is missing, I don't see troubles with transferring.

My conclusions:

• It terms of content the new version is vastly superior. And my firm POV is that content always trumps formalities of style. We have plenty of wikignomes who can fix this and that.
• Ignoring the issue of narrative style, it is much easier to implant lost old referenced content into the new one rather than vice versa.

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)

rewrite of joke page needs evaluation, review

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)smithriedelSmithriedel (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)smithriedelSmithriedel (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to my short list above. If these are addressed I'm fine with going with the new version. Good work. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:25, 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)smithriedelSmithriedel (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Frame analysis

The frame analysis article link doesn't seem appropriate. — MaxEnt 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

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