Category talk:Wikipedia humor

Department of Fun Category‑class Bottom‑importance

	This category is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Bottom	This category has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

2006[edit]

Let us joke only, and not fool around... --Bhadani 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFD immediately[edit]

I personally find this, along with the entire concept of humor unencyclopedic and a logical candidate for deletion. Reasons being the section states no true facts and is very obviously not bound to a neutral point of view (as all things should be). Being a man who has lived his entire life near devoid of whimsy and other childish distractions I can safely say that humor is but an illusion to mask our drone-like compulsions and that this sort of thing, especially on an encyclopedia is pointless. I'm sure many respected members of this business would agree with me when I say that this information-website would not miss a feeble tumor on this noble superhuman-brain.

Remember, this is a website made to inform the public, not to make them happy. Mr. Brigg's Ink 23:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. Brave warrior 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're not joking, I think you will find you've misspelled humour. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that your condemnation of humor on this site is unjustified. For instance, how would you logically be fit to judge whimsy if your entire life has been devoid of it, as you have mentioned? I originally assumed you were a member of an alien species that has shunned emotion in favor of pure logic, but the ones that I am familiar with can tolerate comedy, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.49.17 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally think the jokes are silly.Peas345 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a name change?[edit]

Why not call this "Wikipedia's Poor Attempts At Humor"? 8-) RocketMaster 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I call humor!:D R.E.D (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these pages[edit]

No, some people will not find these pages funny at all and someone will find annoyed by these pages. Also, what is the point of a page only being used for joke purposes. Please reply in here and also on my talk page if anyone disagrees with me. Brave warrior 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) This is a encyclopedia and not a online joke book, all these pages should not be in Wikipedia. Brave warrior 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply can be found here. Unschool 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a way to make funny versions of pages.--Arceus fan 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People would only find these humorous pages annoying if they stumbled upon one while they were searching the wiki for information for serious purposes. I have used Wikipedia as an academic resource on countless occasions, and while I often got sidetracked, I was completely unaware that Wikipedia had a sense of humor until I found the link for Wikipedia Humor on TV Tropes. Given the relatively remote likelihood of people running into these pages while doing serious business on this wiki, I simply cannot agree that readers would find Wikipedia Humor "annoying". Furthermore, it would be safe to assume that the grand majority of Wikipedians are not robots or Vulcans, but human beings, almost each and every one of them endowed with a certain capacity to appreciate humor; therefore, Wikipedia Humor is not illogical in that it attracts more people to this wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.49.17 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Peas345 (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Is there anywhere where we can archive hilariously droll edit summaries? Someone just removed an insane ramble on the Elizabeth II page about how the queen and her adorable corgis killed and ate the former leader of the Labour party with the edit summary "remove speculations." Thank goodness they were bold and didn't just hesitantly put a "citation needed" tag on it! --Jfruh (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few users who make an effort to archive some of the stranger bits of vandalism/joke edits/quotes. If you want some, Keeper has lots here. Zell65 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I think it would have been even funnier if someone did put a "citation need" tag on it. I would've saved a printscreen of that for sure. Zell65 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Importance[edit]

How is a category that is basically a directory to all Wikipedia's MOST fun pages rated as bottom importance to the Department of Fun? Why, Department of Fun could redirect to this page and it would be more than satisfactory. Could the importance be increased please? --██████ 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty good idea! Too bad nobody really looks at this page, lol. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May we stop?[edit]

I think the jokes are not funny.Peas345 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Anyone who disagrees, please post on my talk page.Peas345 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]