Jump to content

Talk:Humour/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Making up words

One question for all of you: Doesn't making up words count as humor? Like if i tell my friends I'm going to "Wikipedia" it? I know it derives some laughter because it's so common yet unmentioned, so does that count too? I'd like to hear some thoughts. --Macrowiz 04:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"It has been claimed that humour cannot be explained. However, attempts can be made, such as this one"I like poo do you?

Is that funny, or am I just a Itioot?

I thought it was hilarious actually....now theres two of us...

Dissapointed to find "Poo" leading right back to humour. Seems like it should have it's own page. Datepalm17 15:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. It shouldn't be included.

Considering the number of vandals who seem to find it funny, it might be worth examining why... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Sun

Announcement: This page was listed in the Saturday, May 29 edition of the Vancouver Sun as one of the best pages for humour on the internet. Kathy T 20:19, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

humor as a defense mechanism in the holocaust
http://web.macam.ac.il/~ochayo/absract.html

I added a link, http://www.iridis.com/glivar/Humour . I am not sure if it has more information than the wiki articles or if it just shows them in a different format, but the things on it are things I havn't yet seen here. It gives credit to the wikipedia.

I took it back off because it seems to be just a copy of this article. I will keep it in here for reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFdUzgkDasI

Why isn't there a link to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Humour somewhere prominent on this page? maybe an icon just to the left of the page/entry's Title? maybe a "Lookup {current page title word}" to the right somewhere? these are simple questions to ask. like "where's your toilet?". so little real estate; so much scissorgy.  :)Ozzyslovechild 04:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So add it yourself! Be bold! --Zakharov 01:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trust thyself, young padawan. Have confidence.--OleMurder 12:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragements:). I was just scribling on this discussion page cuz that's where i was when it occured to me to ask/suggest, but it's more of a site layout topic not specific to this article. I wanted to be reminded later of the wonder on my watchlist so I could mull it again and then at some point ask it somewhere that discusses the overall layout. Seems like there should be a link to the relevant Wiktionary article for all Wikipedia search terms, with implementation decisions needing to think about for all or for all single-word searches? for only those which have Wiktionary articles already created for them? for only those with articles already created & for words that exist in a valid-word file depending on technical feasibility? -:)Ozzyslovechild 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does lawyer (in the rabbi, priest, lawyer example joke) link to shark? is this intended humo(u)r?Stale Fries 01:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes this was intended humor. Quite amusing, really. I fixed it though DaveTheRed 02:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that asking kills the joke, but what is the significance or humor in this? Besides the fact that lawyers are obviously not sharks...Stale Fries 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lawyers are frequently called "sharks," "ambulance chasers," etc. 220.110.204.129 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Humour

This article isn't very funny. Anyone mind if I add a pun or two? Or maybe it's already subtly been incorporated but I'm too dumb to figure it out. 24.64.223.203 14:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about humour, not a humourous article. --Pokettrokett 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A pun is the lowest form of humid, so if your wit is dry, pun away, quickly! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How could any wit be dry with all this humidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder puck (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Verbal vs. NonVerbal

it seams to me that catagoricaly seperating into "verbal" and "nonverbal" hinders the scope of complexity within which each style of humure opperates. alternatives? we recognize that books are humorass and thus "literal" would make a good catagory. and then knowing that we can listen to jerky boys or a richard prior album we recognize verbal or audio /hyu-mer/ is "literal" + other factors such as timing, intonation, dialects/voices, and bodily noises (like spitting/blowing a rasberry). and then there is "performative" or "visual" hoomoar which is much of the "verbal" + visual stimulation through facial expressions, costume, timing of movement, visual satire/charicature, sequential cartoon or surrealism. So many of these styles "parody", "dry humur",etc exist in all of "literal", "verbal/audio" and "visual/performative" catagories of humore. but "performative/visual" cant do everything that the "literal" can accomplish. for instance punctuation or type hughmar. (ie, James Joyce or the imagist poets) each catagory as defined by its medium carries its own "media humre" that can only exist within that particular medium of communication. some might call this a "metaphysical hiumir". point being, we need to both broaden and specify the catagorical listings. if this is not possible then i prepose we do away with catagorization of the hummors all together.(20:19, 6 April 2006 68.23.111.15)

Relation with humour

Shouldn't it have more examples of humour around the world? Every culture deals with humour in a very particular way... I have an old book with me, "Around the World with Laughter" (Pierre Daninos), and although the book isn't updated (I have a 1º edition from 1956) it contains a great deal of historically relevant and interesting information about humour. For example, in Japan people's relation to humour is always secondary, due to their rather serious nature. In the beginning of the last century, when the first company of Italian Opera settled in Japan, the show was regarded as being highly amusing, leading the auditory to tears of laughter. The book doesn’t state the reasons why this happen, but I guess it's a case of cultural shock. Again, this is a very old book and I don't know the sufficient to talk about the current situation of humour in Japan. I would lend a hand on the editing, but I don't feel secure of my English (I’m a native speaker of Portuguese) and I'm a Wikipedia newbie. I can only do so much as quoting the book I have in my possession. Kind of pathetic, but it's the least I can do.


Baltazar A.S. dos Passos

P.S.: Ah! And what about physical humour? P.P.S.: Man's relation to humour is something unique in nature. We can laugh at something stupid like a fart but the same display will leave an animal indifferent or at best startle it. Aren't there any philosophies related to humour? The main impression I get from seeing Monty Python's films is that humour at times functions as a way to justify life itself... Maybe this would prove to be a worthy topic.

--213.190.195.101 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

More specific references

I think the Understanding humour section in very interesting; althoug I think it is really missing specifig source references.--BMF81 21:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tack {{cite needed}} after anything you think could use it, then?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
you're right, i'll be bold. --BMF81 22:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

What is with this retooling! I came here so I could see the techniques but SOMEONE retooled the ENTIRE ARTICLE and got rid of the techniques! AT A TIME WHEN I NEEDED THEM A LOT.

I fixed it myself. Hmph.

Suggested Merge with Comedy

I proposed these two pages be merged since they cover the same topic. Given that Comedy was put up first, Humour could easily be added as a subsection therein. This page should be replaced with a disambiguation page between the current and archaic meanings of Humour. 203.199.50.16 10:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Humor and Comedy are two distinct things. The important distinction I think is that Humorism regards the tecniques that provoke a laugh; comedy is insted one of the possible uses of humor (to just have fun); another use being satire (to have fun to make people think and provoke social change).--BMF81 10:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. They are different things. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I was going to fix "humourous" which appears several times here, and many times across Wikipedia. I'm fairly sure it is an error, although dictionary.com does list it. However, Dictionary.com also lists, for example, "publically", which I think is clearly wrong.

Does anybody object to standardising on "humorous"? I'll hold off for now. See also [1]

--Guinnog 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Guinnog 18:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, in all dialects of English humorous is the correct spelling. MrTroy 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So far nobody has complained, so I'm confident I did the right thing! --Guinnog 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to confirm - 'humourous' is always incorrect - you were right to change it to 'humorous'. L1v3rp00l 21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen reference in techniques section

I deleted a reference to Woody Allen in the techniques section, as it was not relevant.

It is highly relevant as it is explained:

Humor is a branch of rhetoric, and there are about 200 tropes that can be used to make jokes. A notable example on this is the classical trilogy of Woody Allen's writings (Getting Even, Without Feathers, Side Effects), which covers the whole comedy spectrum, using all the 200 tropes.

If you really want to keep that out, you better give a reason for that.--BMF81 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Style Of Humor" and "Specific techniques for evoking humour" sections

What are the differences between these two sections? For instance, I do not see a reason why "satire" is only in the Style of Humor section, yet not in the Specific Techniques section. Could it not be considered both?

I am just curious about the difference, but maybe it should be written into the article. It was the first thing I noticed when I started reading it. BrotherGeorge 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

hairlarious

Haha. I added the "Meta Humour" section under "Understanding humour".

It's really intersting that an article talking the world about humour that isn't even humourous (example of meta humour).

Or a website seriously dedicated to jokes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by YS Wong (talk • contribs)


Very nice. Thank you very much. Meta humor happens to be my favorite type.

--Andyminor (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think The Funny Wiki would be a good thing for External Links. A website where they can actually add funny stuff. So, can I put it there? Can I have permission please? —The-thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That link doesn't even work. (anonymous) 08:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It moved here. —The-thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


What about the site Funny Jokes and Stories? It has some classic examples of modern day humor, from standup comedy to jokes.

Humor/Humour

Why does Humor redirect to Humour, an article in which the subject is spelled humor? Prometheus-X303- 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm...it should be spelled humour in the article, I believe There's been a lot of discussion on humor/humour --iamajpeg 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) To clarify, it should be spelled humour in the article because the title is humour, at the moment. I'm not reopening the whole 'should the title be humor/humour' debate --iamajpeg 21:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't want debate anyway, just to know why it was spelled without the u in the article. Seemed kinda silly.Prometheus-X303- 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this English version of Wikipedia in British English or American English? ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently British, as "humour" is the British spelling. Granted British Humour is very good, but what is the standard for Wikipedia articles? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.210.89 (talk • contribs)
The standard is to follow either: the dialect the article was first written in, or the dialect that relates most to the article (so for an article about a British subject, use British English; for an American subject, use American English etc). However there are other guidelines affecting this too, such as the guidelines not to change an article against consensus, or where it will not improve the encylopedia --iamajpeg 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the majority of English speaking users on Wikipedia are more likely to be American, it's only proper that the American spelling is preserved. This being said, many articles based on subjects such as 'humour,' 'behaviour,' 'rigor' and the like should be edited as the article on color/colour was, and add the vandalism disclaimer (about preventing "spelling wars") in the editing page as well. (As stated by the above user, it should be fine to leave the alternate spellings when the article is in reference to a chiefly British subject. But articles unrelated to any particular British subject should retain Americanization, noting as well the British spelling.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.149.245.103 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Thats silly. British, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand and many many other countries spell it Humour. Its a bit Deceptive to call it British English. Humour is International English, Hmour is American English. And throughout most of Europe and many other continents when english is taught as a second language the International method is taught. In any case how many people spell the word a certain way is not how wikipedia works and nor how it should work. - UnlimitedAccess 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "International English". And Europeans, by the way, are divided on usage. The point, however, is this: the Humor/Humour article represents a weird case, since it was originally written as "humor", someone changed it to "humour", in violation of policy, and no one noticed/cared for a while. Current WP guidelines don't provide clear guidance in cases like these. One group has said: "We need to correct the violation that changed it to "humour"! The other says: "We need to follow the 'don't change unless there's a good reason' rule!" (And the first says, "there is a good reason!" And the second says: "No there isn't!!" etc., etc., etc.) My recommendation: leave the article as it is, unless there are lots of people who think the original violation should be corrected. Main thing: let's be thinking about a better solution to the problems of dialectic differences on WP. --Truth About Spelling 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone let me in on the policy here? Colour redirects to color, humor redirects to humour. This is not at all consistent. Are we to sit around and leave it inconsistent because the original authors were of one nationality or the other? The most agreeable thing to do would probably be to have enus.wiki and engb.wiki domains, but that would be resource-consuming. People have made claims that American readership is greater and that British-spelling readership is greater; this is all irrelevant! The conflict will remain as long as there is no clear policy as to whether this wikipedia is supposed to use one spelling or the other and there are individuals of both varieties who use this wiki; and I believe that that will be the case for quite a while. --corp

Yawn - as noted previously there isn't a simple divide betnween UK English and US English, so your "solution" is unworkable. What we have now is perfectly workable (and educational too) if only people like you would stop moaning about it. As for policy - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Any more you have to say about spelling should go on the spelling subpage. Jooler 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Describing something as workable "as long as people don't complain about it" is faulty logic, since if people are complaining, there might be something wrong with the system, don't you think? Why is there not a link to this article at the top of the talk page of every contested article? And yes, they are contested, as evidenced by the complaints! Policy aside, the instinct of a bona-fide editor would be to try to bring about some sort of consistency. My point is that people complaining about the situation (like myself!) would be more efficiently dealt with by a flashy link to the correct forum to voice their concerns (or even a snarky "your opinions don't matter, the system is fine" comment - automated, or mentioned atop the page, you wouldn't have to go around and tell people this manually.) --corp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.243.128.105 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
It occurs to me that leaving it spelled Humour could actually be a kind of amusing, sort of a self-referential joke built into the page, particularly if everything else on the site is redirected our->or. David A Spitzley 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia pefers articles to be in one or the other so it is not confusing to readership. O personally like it to be stated on a page but they don't do that. If the original creator was british then i guess we stick to british english, it seems only fair especially as the american does get a little tiresome. Toload1 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Terribly Written

This article feels as if it was written to fulfill a "Number of words" requirement. There are quite a few sentences which go nowhere and I don't find it funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.174.233.191 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know about any part of the article struggling to be funny, but I did notice some awkward sentence structure.
If no one minds, I'm going to go through and clean it up a little bit, and/or look into the "struggling humor" bits.
--Andyminor (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoo sign: not humorous

The sign on the bat enclosure in Bristol Zoo is painfully unfunny. Woul anyone mind terribly if it were removed? --Yath 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not me, consider changing picture so we have something there though --iamajpeg 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would change it if I knew of something good to put there. But this image is so bad that nothing at all is better. --Yath 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we photoshop it so it reads "...they may shit on your head"? Now *that* would be funny, though I'm not sure it would be acceptable under fair use.Bedesboy 20:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see how some people may find the sign funny, but to me that doesn't seem to be the sign's intention. It seems more like a euphemism to me. Perhaps someone can find a suitably funny comic strip under the creative commons licence. AndrewSvet 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry, I'm not too sure of how to replace it with the original text, but under 'understanding humour' one of the quotes says:

"Motherfucker you know how much I hate Garfield."

Could someone who knows how remove this? Phunting 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. There is a lot of vandalism taking place in this article, maybe it should be blocked for unregistered users. John C PI 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me, please!

The British spelling is killing me!!! FirefoxMan 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The subcategory "abuse" (and the link) is not appropriate. Could somebody correct this, please?

Editing doesn't stick to non-users

Things I edit can't be seen by non-registered users? Why is this? Nfanslim 8:27PM, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Humour is defined as the ability to evoke amusement. Amusement is defined as "the state of experiencing humorous events". Isn´t that weird? A.Z. 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny Picture?

That painting is very stand-out. I like it, and it goes very well with the subject. Heheheheee. I just thing that it should say who painted it like most other paintings. Just a suggestion.PЄ|>ρ3® 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to poke his belly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoX101 (talk • contribs) 14:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I think this [2] is an essential link for somebody who is in Wikipedia to understand Humor academically. Let me know your thoughts so that we can add this. --siavash siavash

Humor as an attractive quality women desire

Has this web page on humor discussed how humor can influence women's opinions of potential mates? Please let me know. Albert Cheng 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't men find humour just as attractive as women?AndrewSvet 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFdUzgkDasI

As I understand it, women like men who make them laugh. Men, on the other hand, enjoy the company of women who laugh at their jokes. Albert Cheng 14:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212200527.htm

slapstick

Can anyone tell me if the line stating 'Children of all back grounds prefer slap stick' is sourcable or has a reference. As I don't believe for a second that all children prefere slap stick or anyone really. Do children even like punch and judy considering how it has died out and a lot of people and children find it scary not funny. i doubt children of a lot of different back grounds even know what punch and judy is. I know a lot of children who absolutly hate slap stick and for some reason companies seem to push slap stick on children especially Hollywood with films such as Dumb and Dumber. If I was to say which children do find slap stick vaguely amusing i would say boys. Anyway i would like this line taken out and I am wondering if it is vandalism. Toload1 00:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have amended this as nobody objectedToload1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

What is the noun for "serious"? Seer? Sear? Siere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.190.64 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

God?
--Andyminor (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Humor in sci-fi suggestion

Do you think it would be interesting to mention the unability of machines to understand humor? I remember in Star Trek Generations how Data couldn't understand it until he installed that new chip inside of him. Also, I'm reading a book called Ringworld by Larry Niven and on page 73 an alien creature named Nessus says that "We do not joke. My species has no sense of humor.... Humor is associated with an interrupted defense mechanism." What do you think. (I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. This is my very first post.)


JBR0807 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

non-verbal humour reference

I think a better reference could be used instead of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, a short lived, unsuccessful televison show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.58.55 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of humour

I'm not sure the first paragraph is a good definition of humour. Where is it from?

Current definition:

  • Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the ability of people, objects, situations or words to evoke feelings of amusement or happiness in people.

Apart from the poor grammar (objects and situations don't have ability because they are inanimate) I think it does not convey clearly what humour is. It doesn't even mention laughter. I suggest a better wording below but surely there must countless better attempts to define humour by experts?

I absence of these, here's my best attempt at a description:

  • Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the tendency of particular images, stories or situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist of what humour is and what social function it serves. However, people of all ages and cultures respond to humour and many share a common sense of humour.

What do people think?

--Billtubbs (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An entirely novel category of humor

Science cartoons have a long history, but this new website has cartoon category that is fast becoming very popular. These are cartoons about science research. Not for everybody, almost exclusively for those in science research. I think wikipedia can mention this new category of humor in an otherwise projected as a dry field! The link is http://www.vadlo.com/Daily_Research_Cartoon.html, I hope some editor will take a note and think about adding/permiting me to add a short description with this external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Described (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Humour: Evolution of Humour: Alastair Clarke

{{editsemiprotected}} The quotation included from Alastair Clarke needs some extra clarification; it should read: Alastair Clarke explains: "The Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how ..." This makes it clear that his work relates to that specific theory of humour rather than explaining other existing theories.

Would it be possible to create a link from Alastair Clarke in the Humour entry to a further clarification of the theory as below:

Clarke’s Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour presents a cognitive and evolutionary explanation of humour that awards it major significance in the development of humankind’s unique perceptual and intellectual capacities.

The theory removes all stipulations of content or context from the material in question, stating that, essentially, the brain finds something amusing when it recognizes a pattern that surprises it. The humorous response, as a reward, exists to encourage such cognitive activity. “Obviously content is necessary for patterns to be identifiable, but once that content exists it is the level of the pattern at which humour operates and for which it delivers its rewards,” states Clarke.

The ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously provided early humans with a distinct perceptual advantage, not only in spatial manipulation but also in matters of recontextualization and adaptability. Encouraged by the rewards of the humorous response the cognitive capacities of the species became unparalleled in the animal kingdom in terms of speed and efficiency.

Clarke claims the theory has wide-ranging implications in infantile cognitive development, animal behaviour, psychology, linguistics, neurology and artificial intelligence, among others. He has also pledged to produce a software engine within a matter of years that will prove the tenets of his theory by providing a computer or robot with a basic, unisensory sense of humour.

Alastair Clarke is an evolutionary theorist and science writer based in the UK. He studied at Oxford and London universities. Nicolahern (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Not done This article is not for the promotion of Alistair Clarke.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alister Clarke makes some extravagant claims: to mention one: he claims to have found a universal theory of humour. As there is still no agreement what constitutes humour, such a statement is ridiculous.

He appears to have things back to front: laughter/humour is, in some cases, the result of pattern recognition but does not encourage or facilitate pattern recognition, which is an innate faculty throughout the animal kingdom.

I concede that laughter might help young children learn, but again it is the laughter process that facilitates learning not humour.

Alistair Clarke should have consulted as many humour researchers as possible and acquainted himself with all the pitfalls of writing a book on humour. I have sent him my essay: Laughter as a displacement activity: the implications for humor theory, and my reservations concerning his book, but have received no answer. 

  https://sites.google.com/site/basilhughhall/anewtheoryoflaughterandhumor

Laughterman  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.52.106 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

CFD of Category:Humor

Category:Humor is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 7#Category:Humor with the objective of renaming it to match the article (or vice versa). Please direct all comments to the CFD page. — CharlotteWebb 08:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious

I was looking for an article on the word hilarious but it's redirected to humour so I'm putting a question here and hoping someone sees and answers it. Is it "AN hilarious set of circumstances" or "A hilarious set of circumstances?" 90.208.63.252 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • "A" for words beginning with a consonant. "AN" for words beginning with a vowel. ~ Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It depends on how you pronounce it. Personally I pronounce the h, so I write "a hilarious". I think a lot of people, especially in the US, don't, so they write "an hilarious". This is the rule from Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. --Hans Adler (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It is pronounced with an H in the US. I've never heard it pronounced any other way. Source? --Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It seems you are right. It didn't occur to me that some people could still be following that old rule that prescribed "an" before 'h' sounds that start an unstressed syllable. But I found this on the web: "In writing, the form a is used before a word beginning with a consonant sound, regardless of its spelling (a frog, a university). The form an is used before a word beginning with a vowel sound (an orange, an hour). An was once a common variant before words beginning with h in which the first syllable was unstressed; thus 18th-century authors wrote either a historical or an historical but a history, not an history. This usage made sense in that people often did not pronounce the initial h in words such as historical and heroic, but by the late 19th century educated speakers usually pronounced initial h, and the practice of writing an before such words began to die out. Nowadays it survives primarily before the word historical. One may also come across it in the phrases an hysterectomy or an hereditary trait. These usages are acceptable in formal writing." See [3], in one of the passages starting with "Usage note". I am not sure the other such passage is consistent with this one. Hans Adler 12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

who cares? *dream on*dance on* 03:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Humor, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I suggest to add this link to the external weblinks:

Would that be all right? --Chris Howard (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Editors of this article might be able to use some material from this essay to expand the article.--Aervanath (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that the new article Humour sense (which probably refers to "sense of humour" - a redirect to Humour) be merged into Humour. As it stands now, Humour sense seems to be a bit of an essay with some academic references. The reasons I'm not proposing to delete that article outright (and believe me, I definitely considered a PROD for a while), is that some of the references might be useful in the Humour, possibly with an expansion of "sense of humour". Singularity42 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can attempt it, but that article is pretty bad. Ignoring its overly casual tone, it's going to be hard to figure out what to salvage and what to throw out based on references. But hey, give it a shot. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You might be right. I took another look at the article and unless I want to research the papers cited there, I wouldn't know what is salvable. I think I'll leave this merger proposal for a few days to see if anyone else has some thoughts, and if that's the general consensus I'll prod the article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
My vote for striking it altogether. I've never seen the term humour sense before, and Googling for it doesn't find too many hits. Rp (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming the author wanted "sense of humour", which already redirect to this article's page. I'm going ahead and PRODing the article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, the list of references in Humour sense is real and valuable, if accompanied by a discussion. Rp (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've included the references here, so that they'll still be around to work on when/if the other article is deleted:

  • Boyle GJ, Joss-Reid JM (2004) Relationship of humour to health: a psychometric investigation. Br J Health Psychol 9(Pt 1):51-66.
  • Clark A, Seidler A, Miller M (2001) Inverse association between sense of humor and coronary heart disease. Int J Cardiol 80(1): 87-88.
  • Kelly WE (2002) An investigation of worry and sense of humor. J Psychol 136(6): 657—666.
  • Sayre J (2001) The use of aberrant medical humor by psychiatric unit staff. Issues Ment Health Nurs 22(7):669-689.
  • Thorson JA, Powell FC (2001) Undertakers' sense of humor. Psychol Rep. 89(1): 175—176.

Singularity42 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Humours of Yahoo Matches

Yahoo Matches asks members to self-report on a classification of humours - eg. dry humour. That typology could be analyzed here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.198.51.211 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation requests

Regarding this edit: WP:V only requires citations for claims that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and nobody is going to seriously challenge the statement that "humour" exists, or that people have a "sense of humour". Editors do not have to provide citations to claim that the sky is blue or that water flows downhill. Hut 8.5 10:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To respectfully disagree, there are plenty of philosophers who make it their mission in life to argue that things like humour don't exist.
―67.180.86.254 (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The text below is from a humour research forum.

"Of course, saying that "humor doesn't exist" is a methodological point of view ; we must prove the occurrences of humor, each time it appears. I think that many scholars have made a confusion between the word "humor" and the wide range of events occurring in everyday life, in literature, in arts, etc., labelled "humor" by human beings. Of course, "humor exists"... but is there only one way to define it, to define its mechanisms ?... I'm not sure of this. As we all know here, all the definitions proposed by all scholars (from Antiquity to nowadays) don't explain the phenomenon at a moment or another. Because there is no ONE essence of the phenomenon nor ONE definition which explains it ." Médéric Gasquet-Cyrus (University of Aix-Marseille/France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadees (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The French and humeur/humour

"The French were slow to adopt the term "humour"; in French, "humeur" and "humour" are still two different words, the former referring to a person's mood or to the archaic concept of the four humours."

What does that even mean? I can accept "slow to accept the term" if it can be dated (even tho, "slow" can be derogative), but humeur and humour are two different words with two different meaning and for good reasons! Just because two words share the same etymology doesn't mean they have to have the same sense / be merged. You wouldn't even think of merging in English "mood" and "humour" to get a new word encompassing both concept would you?

"Humeur" is an exact translation of the english word "mood" and while it's true the term derive from the old bodily humours concept (just like the word "humour" meaning funny/comical in both french and english) it nowadays have nothing in common meaning-wise. I guess the English language is not used to have homonyms, different words with different meanings but with the same writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.38.79 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Integrating the recent theory described in "Inside Jokes"

A recent book: Hurley, Matthew M., Dennet, Daniel C., and Adams, Reginald B. Jr. (2011), Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind, presents a very promising and very comprehensive theory of humor. It will be excellent to integrate their ideas into this article. They begin with a survey of theories of humor, comment on each, then present their theory and finally show how several earlier theories are partially correct and combine to support their theory. If I ever get some time to spend on this I will, but perhaps someone else, who has some background in the theory of humor, can take this up. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Democritus the Laughing Philosopher

The Young Rembrandt as Democritus the Laughing Philosopher (a 1629 self-portrait).

Under the section heading for Humour#Ancient Greece, please add the image at right. 72.244.206.77 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason for deletion of this image or the laughing peasant woman. They might be laughing for any reason. Of course, there might be more explicit images used. Does User:Staszek Lem have any idea for better images? CarolMooreDC 07:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Page assessment

I came across this page while reviewing Pending Changes. Someone in one of these projects should do an assessment on this page, because it is no longer a stub. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Humour/humor graphics

Ok there is one pic of people smiling/laughing, two similar ones removed because weren't humourous. But that one really isn't humorous either. So lets find a few actual examples.

So why not find some that actually ARE funny and described thusly in photo description? CarolMooreDC 15:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Bacon materializer
    Bacon materializer

humour and psychos

humour can also be used by bad people such as psychos to deflect criticism - thus trivialising an awkward situation for them.--Penbat (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an unlikely scenario; psychos would probably hit you over the head with a brick long before this problem even became an issue. — Psychobot (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.8.106 (talk)

The Internet and cats

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)



Requested move 13 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus to move in this RM – There will most likely never be any real consensus reached in RM discussions on these ENGVAR issues as the arguments for or against are as my daddy used to say: Half a dozen to one, six to the other and the participation is limited. Our titling policy in these matters is only clear in the minds of those that think it’s clear. Given B2C’s admonition at the end of this RM, I have decided to Move Protect this article for 1 year at the current title and will remove that protection under one circumstance. If indeed as B2C suggests, despite the clear opposition to the move in this RM, there is a wider community consensus to have the title at Humor, then make that case in a widely advertised RFC. If an RFC returns the conclusion that B2C believes represents community-wide consensus, I will remove protection and the article can be moved. Otherwise, let’s get on with improving the encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Humour → Humor – This is bound to be controversial, no doubt. This article started as American English, and was subsequently changed. IF we are to follow policy, it should be restored back. There is precedence to doing this after a long time ( yogurt ). The common argument that the British founded humor, or that the British are funnier is obviously patently wrong. There is an argument to be made for keeping the article as it is, as it's been that way for awhile, but again, see yogurt or this own article's talk page where it was brought up repeatedly to change back, and shouted down by a contingent who didn't dare want to lose their 'u'. By policy, this is a simple revert, for an undiscussed move. Cheers, ipuser. 94.2.198.12 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:RETAIN. If a page is started with one English spelling, it should remain there unless there was a compelling reason to move it. There was no compelling reason to move from American to British in this case, and it should be returned. Calidum T|C 22:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, Obama told a funny one when he claimed the Iranians agreed to his "historic" nuclear deal, but Cameron can do this. The initializer (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES – The article titles policy is very clear on this matter. Let me quote: "Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state)."
There is no justification for changing the title, contrary to the article titles policy. Leave the stable title alone, per WP:TITLECHANGES. If one looks at the move log, one will see that this page has a long history of fly-by-night users unilaterally moving it away from this title disruptively. Let's not feed into their disruption further. Speedy close. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something it started as humor [4] Calidum T|C 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You're missing a lot. Look in the talk page archives. Regardless, that's irrelevant. This title has been stable since 2002. It cannot be changed per WP:TITLEVAR. MOS:RETAIN does not apply to article titles, and certainly doesn't apply to articles that have been stable since 2002. Even if it were to apply, please note what it says: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". RGloucester — ☎ 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
How does it not matter how it started? The quote you just used was literally American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa it gives no time limit. This has been discussed before, true,and everytime, people come in and say "well, it's in BrE now, so, thus, it's stable." The article started in American English, and was changed without discussion, a clear revert on the surface. Why does the policy of "articles started in one variety of english should not be changed" not apply here? ~~ip user 94.2.198.12 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
True, but it seems just as wrong to go through and unilaterally change articles from American English to British english while hoping that nobody notices, on a world encyclopaedia~~ip user94.2.198.12 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
by title changes, it should probably never have been changed, thus, this is asking for a revert to the proper title, by guidelines ~ipuser
  • Oppose our policies on English usage aren't supposed to be used as tools to rake over ancient history. The article has been at this title for the last 13 years, and 2002 might as well be ancient history as far as Wikipedia is concerned (the site was only founded in January 2001). This move is so old it predates the logging system and wouldn't be in the history at all if someone hadn't done a history merge to restore it, and it predates all the applicable guidelines. WP:TITLECHANGES says that titles which have been stable for a long time should not be changed unless there is a good reason to. Hut 8.5 07:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:RETAIN and Indian English, the world's main form of English. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you can claim that there was consistent consensus to leave this as british english for the last 10 years over American English, it has been constantly brought up, and constantly shouted down, since 2002, by BrE speakers who don't want the change, though, it was started as a American English article. It's not coming in and raking up old history, it's acknowledging an argument that has been going on for...all of wikipedia. Had it not been changed from the original non-stub version, it wouldn't be an issue, but it was, and people have been clamoring to have it back since. Which policy does it violate to move back? ~ip user 94.2.198.12 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
94.2.198.12 can you please search "British humour" vs "American humor" in Google Books and paste the results, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I was interested and did some books searches with the results:
(from search formats such as: "colour" -"color" vs "color" -"colour")

  • Behaviour : Behavior = 1 : 2.47 = 31,900,000 : 78,700,000
  • Colour : Color = 1 : 2.29 = 44,500,000 : 102,000,000
  • Flavour : Flavor = 1 : 2.59 = 3,800,000 : 9,870,000
  • Honour : Honor = 1 : 1.38 = 48,200,000 : 66,800,000
  • Humour : Humor = 1 : 1.89 = 12,700,000 : 24,100,000

Conclusion: proportionately more is written with American English spelling about behavior, color and flavor while proportionately more is written with British English spelling about honour and humour.

GregKaye 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi perhaps interestingly, in light of the above:
The interpretation that I think is likely is that, with good old British presumption, we just assume humour to be British. GregKaye 16:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


I know its a style departure but a random thought I have had is that we might split the difference and call it.

Humour instead of Humour

GregKaye 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Or, we could follow the established policy, i.e. WP:TITLEVAR, and leave it alone. RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester Please see results:
GregKaye 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Och, ya wee scunner! no one can WP:OWN something like humo(u)r. GregKaye 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Humour Humour
  • Oppose since the page appears to have a long and complicated history of moves. A move proposal at this time would at least need to acknowledge and recount that history. Just saying how it started in 2001 and claiming we're asking for a revert of an undiscussed move is not enough. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The history is acknowledged both in saying it's a contentious issue, and the whole talk page dedicated to this exact argument. The fact of the matter is, people have been asking for it to be changed back since right after the change, but it's always shouted down by british english speakers who mobilize. ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES and the fact it's been at the title for over 10 years. –Davey2010Talk 20:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The statute of limitations for reverting the earlier move expired some time ago. Arguments over which variant is more common are irrelevant. Arguments over national origins of humo(u)r are irrelevant. Pburka (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
which WP policy expresses a statute of limitations? Again, yogurt ~~ ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course there's no official statute of limitations, but the whole discussion is disruptive, divisive and a waste of time after so many years. I believe that the original move even predates WP:RETAIN. Pburka (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. According to Alexa, Wikipedia's readership is 25.4 percent American, 8.6 percent Indian, and 3.5 percent British.[5] It's also 7.6 percent Japanese and 4.4 percent German, but those numbers correspond closely to traffic that goes to Japanese Wiki (7.75 percent) or to German Wiki (5.29 percent). I checked the web sites of The Times of India and Hindustan Times and found that both Indian papers use the British "u." That gives us 25 points for "humor," 12 for 'humour." As for "yogurt," it is given in Oxford as the preferred British spelling, so yogurt/yoghurt isn't really an EngVar issue.[6] The initializer (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Readership data is irrelevant. Please read the WP:TITLEVAR policy. RGloucester — ☎ 06:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
so by [[WP:RETAIN}} When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The very fact that there has been a contentious discussion about this for ten years means it has not been resolved. The variety of the first non-stub revision should be maintained. See, again. yogurt there is no statute of limitations for fixing a mistake. ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
exactly the point! It was consistently used in American English, and was switched to british english without consensus, and there has been a long argument about it, never reaching consensus...thus, it should be moved back to "Humor" ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was originally created as Humor and was moved to Humour some time later. If that happened today it wouldn't be tolerated. However, it has since become stable at Humour for many years without, as far as I can see, any form of formal move discussion being initiated (although it has been moved back and forth several times without discussion). If there was an objection, why wasn't it discussed formally long ago? If it had been moved recently without discussion then I would be the first to support it being reverted to its original form, but the simple fact is that it hasn't. In Wikipedia's early years this sort of thing happened, simple as. But if editors cared that much, why has it taken until now for somebody to go through the simple procedure of requesting a move? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per Calidum as WP:RETAIN. An article's ENGVAR should not be changed from its original unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and no one has done that here. So the ENGVAR should go back to the original version. --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the "statute of limitations" has not run out since the history is replete with challenges to this title based on the basic argument of principle that this is an English variation issue, and our policy is to WP:RETAIN the original version when there is no consensus. Consensus is not a popularity contest. In the absence of strong policy based arguments for one title or the other, there is no consensus by definition, and so use of the original title is indicated. That's the only way to resolve these pointless conflicts. Otherwise it will fester for years, just like Yoghurt did for eight years until it was finally moved back to its original title at Yogurt (peace and quiet ever since). --В²C ☎ 22:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:RETAIN. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Anybody else arrived here as a result of the WP:Canvassing at Talk:Yogurt?--Ykraps (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I did. Interesting discussion going on here. Also interesting to see people make up rules to oppose the move, that is. And the discussion could use a sub-section heading or two. It was a bit confusing when I first looked at it. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • There's no making up rules. WP:RETAIN is not at all clear about what constitutes the establishment of consistent usage. Is that first usage or settled usage for a long time after nobody bothered to discuss it properly after it was moved well over a decade ago? I would argue that the first expansion of the article from what was basically a stub actually used British English. And my reading of RETAIN is that this is therefore probably what should be used, although it's not clear-cut either way. But no, we're certainly not making up rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • The original American English version of the article was stable for almost a year back in 2001–02 (two earlier attempts to "overthrow" the original American English version of the article look to have been quickly abandoned revising: only the second attempt to do this was quickly abandoned; it looks like the first attempt at conversion to a Redirect held up for a few months...) until User:Icarus (who has long since decamped from Wikipedia...) came along and unilaterally changed it to British English with this diff. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would view that as kosher. --IJBall (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any statue of limitations in WP:RETAIN. Kharkiv07Talk 13:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I was about to support as per let the Yanks have it back (just don't throw our tea into the sea again). The rationale here was that even though everyone knows that all the best humour comes from British English using peoples, rules is rules and, if Webster's language defiling lot got there first (no offence) then let them have it back.
The only weak argument against relates to the fact that humour has been around in Britain from long before Webster started his language hacking. Consider this early British classic (and its from long before the time of Shakespeare): "What hangs at a man's thigh and wants to poke the hole that it's often poked before? Answer: A key." I said that it was a weak argument. Anyway I'm still undecided, although I find the debate quite humorous.
I really don't think it's a big issue. If the title changes then the text would still begin Humor or humour ... All I know is that they wouldn't have problems with debates like this over at German Wikipedia. GregKaye 20:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It may be a renaissance statue with a small winkle. GregKaye 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose does not lead to any improvement . -M.Altenmann >t 20:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because humour is the better word to use, because it has no problems with recognizability, and because humor is an important unrelated word in biology/anatomy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that there is no Wikipedia policy that reflect any of the reasons given in support of either of the last two Oppose positions. They can be dismissed. This isn't a popularity contest. We're building consensus based on policy. - Boneyard90 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • You should read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines more carefully. Policy is documentation to support good practice, describing good practice, not prescribing, not limiting consensus. For me, "humor" is a word frequently occurring in relation to it's medical meaning, and "humour" is completely recognizable as is. Humorism may be an "old theory", but the humors are still a current technical term. On the other hand, contrary to my personal experience, I see that the medical meaning is also sometimes used with the "u", namely vitreous humour and aqueous humour, both of which Wikipedia uses with the "u" (which I find unusual). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment
On WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. The principle holds considerable support, however, it is not the first thing to consider, but the last. It applies only in "the absence of consensus to the contrary". i.e. in case of "no consensus".
I note that the page was originally at "Humor". It first starting moving to "Humour" with this edit by User:Daniel C. Boyer at 07:08, 7 August 2002.
As a matter of procedure, if there isn't, and never was, consensus for this page to be at "Humour", then per WP:RETAIN it should go back to "Humor". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, it shouldn't necessarily, because its entire expansion beyond a stub has been at "humour". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue that the original article was fleshed out enough to not be a stub, and it was obviously started using "humor" ~~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the article just before the edit cited above that changed the spelling. It's not a stub, and there was no reason to change the spelling. This fact will never change, and will remain a good solid policy-based reason to move this article back to Humor until it is moved accordingly. As I warned at Talk:Yoghurt for years, because of that reason, the debate will continue and the title will not be stable until it is moved. It is precisely for cases like this that I wrote User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, which certainly applies here. I remind the closer: Though there may be no consensus among those that happen to be participating in the discussion, that doesn't mean there is no community consensus regarding the title.. --В²C ☎ 18:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note

Being as RGloucster, who has so often campaigned against getting this article restored to it's original non-stub version of English, has just made this comment : "The first non-stub variety used in this article was BrE with Oxford spelling, and the article should remain in that variety. One can see this here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_Armed_Forces , apparently his opinion has changed on ENGVAR when it comes to long established articles. Perhaps it is time to rethink the policy for this article...again, or is it still different rules for different Englishes. Cheers, ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This zealotry is ridiculous over a move that was done 13 years ago. Presidents, wars, even countries have come and gone while this grudge has been held. America has color, Britan has humour. That's how it's gonna stay. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that given the history (which is so easy to look up) this "ridiculous" and "zealous" "point of view" will recur again and again. Juan Riley (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't fathom a rationale about why this article shouldn't be at it's original, non-stub title. It appears that it was done very long ago, by someone who wanted to press british english to be the english of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:40E7:C10D:C4C1:DD53 (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that JuanRiley is correct. Why is this move protected? Why shouldn't it be moved back to it's original spelling of Humor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:8DA2:7FB1:843E:A79F (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In the workplace section

The "in the workplace" section certainly seems to me to violate WP:SOAP. I propose the information be merged into the "studies" section. 67.80.51.129 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. And kudos to AjaxSmack for trying to lighten the mood. Number 57 21:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Humour → Humor – There is still no reason this shouldn't be moved back to the original spelling. It was moved without consensus, and should be moved back to "Humor" It hasn't been stable, as this is a perpetual move request. By WP:ENGVAR this article should definitely be at "Humor". 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:8DA2:7FB1:843E:A79F (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What about WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN?? The article started one way, and people have been asking to bring it back to it's original state for a decade. It is by no means settled. If it were to go back to the original spelling, as Yogurt did, what would be the rationale to move to to Humour. Put it this way, if the article was currently at humor what would be the rationale to move it to the british humour? There are no strong national ties, the article is written in one variety of english, and was stable. So, now, when this article was moved, someone ran roughshod over these arguments, moved without consensus and in violation of policy, and this move request is just to seek to return the article to it's original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:F5AF:2731:D842:8A29 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the MoS (of which ENGVAR and RETAIN are sections) does not apply to article titles. WP:TITLEVAR is the relevant policy. More importantly, neither ENGVAR nor RETAIN even existed at the time that the "change" occurred. Thirdly, the stable title for more than ten years should remain per WP:TITLECHANGES. Fourthly, I have no time to engage in arguments with a sock army. I'm not going to repeat what I said last time. It is all there. In the meantime, I suggest you find something better to do. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
So, in WP:TITLEVAR I read "Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, " so..American English was respelled as British English. The specific policy you note specifically says that what you are advocating, should not happen. This article was changed from one national variety of english to another. How does that square with WP:TITLEVAR which supports the exact opposite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:F5AF:2731:D842:8A29 (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It is very simple. You are proposing to respell from one variety to another for no reason other than to change the variety, despite that variety having been stable for more than ten years. That's directly contrary to WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES. Your proposed change has zero benefit, and exists only as part of a war between the varieties of the English that has largely been dead for years. TITLEVAR, ENGVAR, RETAIN, these all arose to stop the type of nonsense you're promoting here. I agree that the change that took place when this page was merely a couple sentences long in 2002 would not have been acceptable by today's standards. However, that change took place before any policies or guidelines were written on the matter, and so those cannot be retroactively applied as part of a crusade by a sock army. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:TITLECHANGES "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." This move was done without consensus, and has been questioned in the talk page repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:F5AF:2731:D842:8A29 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment? Per Indian English? The article was started in American English, just because another form of english has more speakers (though not native speakers necessarily) doesn't mean it gets primacy. If we were to take your argument, then everything on the encyclopedia would have to be in Indian English, and British English would cease to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:8426:E509:9147:E6E6 (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it is broken, if this move request comes up this often. I hate to say it, but it'll stay contentious as long as we prescribe to the belief that British English gets primacy on wikipedia articles, even if they were started in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:F5AF:2731:D842:8A29 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support WP:RETAIN revert back to the original version of the article, we should not support dialect switching and should revert it whenever it is discovered, unless we have a wP:COMMONALITY title. (NOTE: my personal preference is "humour" with the "u") -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support "Humour" as a rare exception to WP:RETAIN, as humor is one a few words of American spelling variation that looks particularly odd. Is it that it is often pronounced with a lengthy 2nd syllable, I don't know. Sorry for not being able to argue on the basis of "evidence". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
So that's an oppose w.r.t. the proposed move? Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Yes. fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
As a side note it is clear that the Opposes either do not know the history or are denying it. Assuming good faith they should look into the history before they say things like "stable" ever since some random edit that changed it. But there are no real rules eh? Juan Riley (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, RETAIN (and the MoS) do not apply to article titles. The relevant guidance is WP:TITLEVAR. Secondly, even if RETAIN did apply, it does not support the notion you propose. Please read what it says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change". Consistent usage of "humour" has been established since 2002, more than a decade ago. There is no valid reason to change to "humor" at this juncture. The only reason that you cite is to "retain" the original non-stub version (which is a ludicrous notion so far down that road), but that's not what RETAIN says to do. RETAIN does not say to revert to a version from 2002 for no reason other than to change the variety. RETAIN says "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". The business about the "first non-stub revision" only comes into play if "no English variety was used consistently". That's not the case here, as "humour" has been used consistently from 2002, more than a decade ago, and before RETAIN or ENGVAR even existed. In other words, your argument is non-existent, and, as usual, this whole RM nonsense is just a petty war between people who want to see their "own" variety in the article title. RGloucester — ☎ 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Calm down. Your protestations may indeed prove my point. You care all too much about a spelling variation do you not? Get over it when someone points out the nuanced history of this article and WP's "not-quite-rules". I was only trying to inform folks that might weigh in on the issue. Juan Riley (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't so much that I care about the spelling variation itself, so much as I care about the stupidity of allowing this kind of discussion. The same thing happened at Talk:Movie theater recently, and I opposed that just the same. The purpose of WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:TITLEVAR are to prevent editors from wasting time even discussing this nonsense, and yet here we are again, discussing the same nonsense and having to hear the same misconceptions about the ENGVAR, RETAIN, TITLEVAR, &c., policies/guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear. All we're discussing here is which ENGVAR to prefer in the title, and that's a moot discussion because there will always be arguments one way or the other, and each one is equally correct. Moving a page back to an "original" title is just as silly, if there is no other reason for it, especially when the page hasn't lived at the "original" title for nine years. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
But, the topic has been brought up consistently since movement. I don't believe that constitutes a stable title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humour/Spelling
But none of those discussions resulted in the page being moved. The discussions don't make the title unstable, they just reveal consistently tendentious editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Ivanvector: Agreed. Also, the talk subpage that the IP keeps referring to shows almost no significant activity on the topic since early 2007. Even counting the one (failed) RM last year, that's certainly nothing at all like consistent debate. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a boring game. WaggersTALK 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It has been stable for many years at the British spelling, except for some thrashing in 2006/2007, and has been explicitly tagged as British English since 2010; WP:RETAIN says keep it, not look back so far that you can find an excuse to change it. And as far as I can tell, the first non-stub version, about Sept 2002, used the British spelling; before that, when it was American spelling, it was nothing but a bulleted list of types of humour—a sort of stub outline. So leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Déjà vu. This is Yoghurt/Yogurt all over again. In general, as long as a legitimate policy reason remains to move an article, the current title will not be stable. As soon as it is moved to a title where there will be no legitimate policy reason to move it from, it will become stable. That is exactly the situation here. This is the offending edit which changed the variety of English of this article (which was not a stub - decent content almost a year old with about a dozen edits by half a dozen editors) from American to Commonwealth for no reason other than to change the variety of English, contrary to policy even back then. Not unexpectedly, the variety of English and the title has been controversial ever since - this is the quintessential case for going back to the default per WP:RETAIN (When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.). If this article is moved back to its original title, Humor, per policy, it will become as stable as Yogurt has been for over four years now, after its default variety/title was finally restored after eight years of similar tumult. The closers at Yoghurt kept finding "no (local) consensus" year after year after year despite the strong community consensus (per policy) arguments made there, before reason finally prevailed. Hopefully, the closer here will be wise enough to finally end this nonsense by following community consensus as reflected in policy and the strong Support arguments here, rather than caving in to the desperate opposing whines.

    Disagree? Then imagine what will happen if the closer does find in favor of policy and community consensus and moves the title back to Humor per WP:RETAIN. What policy based argument will the U-advocates have to move it back to Humour? None, of course, just as the H-advocates have got nothing at Yogurt. Note that this is not the case at, for example, Aluminium. There, there is no basis to move to the American spelling, because the original variety/title there was Commonwealth English. So, that title is stable, as this one will also be, once its original variety/title is restored. Or, imagine if the closer finds "no consensus" and the current title remains. You think this issue won't be raised again? Think again (and I'm not saying it will be me; it's not this time, and it won't be next time, nor any time - I'm just here to weigh in with the only decision that will resolved this ongoing multi-year conflict over such a trivial matter) --В²C ☎ 17:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

B2C, you aren't related to the IPs up above, are you? I find it very suspicious that they keep mentioning "yogurt", which is your own personal byword for a skewed reading of our policies and guidelines. Let's not forget that that "yogurt principle" of yours has no consensus behind it, and was nearly deleted for being so far off the mark. There is no instability, RETAIN does not say what you say it says, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were the one creating the so-called "instability" as part of waging a slow war of attrition on the basis of the "yogurt principle" programme for moulding Wikipedia's article titles to your liking. RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice blatant violation of AGF, RGloucester, not to mention totally ignoring my point (like it or not this title will remain unstable until it's changed; no, that's not a threat, it's a prediction, the same one I made year after year at Yoghurt, until it was finally moved and I was proven to be right). For the record, I did not even read most of the comments here before I posted, and certainly did not see the IP posts. I have no idea who they are. I came here because I, as a participant in a previous discussion here, got notified on my Talk page. --В²C ☎ 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This horse has been out of the barn so long that there isn't even a barn left to go back to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 17:29, February 18, 2016‎
Not exactly stable if it keeps coming up again and again is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humour/Spelling
FYI, the page you're citing shows practically no debate since 2007. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose ..... I'm assuming the nom is an American who's upset at the fact a British word is used as an opposed to an American word.... Yeah deal with it!, As per TITLECHANGES and RETAIN (and basically per my prev RFC !vote) the title here should remain as it is. –Davey2010Talk 23:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the IP address that's given is in the UK, and I'm British, but, hey, don't let a good story get in the way of the facts. You are obviously British, from Kent, and are opposed to the use of any American word (though they do use them often in the Sun, which you apparently read). Regardless, this article was changed by some Brit who was upset that an American word was used as opposed to a British word, so, they should have just 'dealt with it' as opposed to violating a host of policies and changing it to their preferred usage, or is what's good for the goose only good for the gander if the gander is British? We can have articles change from American English to British English and that is perfectly ok, but you will come out and fight tooth and nail to keep it from going the other way around? By TITLEVAR and RETAIN and ENGVAR then, it should never ever have been changed, and thus, should be changed back. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:A97F:4F52:FFC8:97A9 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow sorry for that reply! - I wasn't specifically having a go at you, I've seen it on many occasions where an American will try to change a British title to an American one and IMHO it's pointless, The editor who moved the article shouldn't have done so but now that's it's remained here for nearly 10 years (I think!) it seems kinda pointless moving it now... –Davey2010Talk 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It is very easy to get a fake IP address located wherever one wants. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Another AGF thrown under the bus? Juan Riley (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
AFG only goes so far. I'm not stupid, or at least I like to think that I'm not, and AFG is not a suicide pact. The disruptiveness surrounding this and previous requests, initiated by strange IPs that mention the "yogurt" business, is all a bit too funny to ignore. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the logic of the yogurt/yoghurt argument seemed as a good precedent for this change (as it is). In a common law society, like the UK, one would try to base our arguments on precedent. I am not B2C, and I have not had much interaction with that user before. It is a bit preposterous to think someone would spoof an IP address to make a simple wikipedia move request, don't you think? Cheers!

Comment for all those that oppose reinstating this to the original version of English it was written in. If this doesn't go through, can we willy-nilly switch articles to whichever flavour of English we want, and then just hope it sticks? That is exactly what was done here. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:A97F:4F52:FFC8:97A9 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In answer to your question, no: we have guidelines that discourage us from flipping between equally valid English variants in established titles – which, just to be clear, is what your proposal requests. We shouldn't seek to right wrongs with more wrongs, particularly when the supposed wrong you hope to correct was 13 years ago, before some of the current guidelines even existed. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Question - 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:8DA2:7FB1:843E:A79F, firstly, are you the same person who initiated the last move request? And secondly, I see you have already visited the Pajamas article, why are you not requesting it be returned to its original British English spelling?--Ykraps (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Curious about your inquiry, I investigated, and only had to go as far as the closer's statement to get the answer: "Since the page was still a stub when moved to "pajamas" on 14 November 2004 ([11] and [12]), the first non-stub version was at the "pajamas title"." Apples and oranges. --В²C ☎ 16:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The questions were specifically addressed to the IP. Why are you getting involved?--Ykraps (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
What part of "Curious about your inquiry, I investigated, and ..." do you not understand? Why do you care who answers? Are you here to engage in a debate with a particular person, or are you genuinely trying to ascertain whether this previous action is relevant precedent to this proposal? --В²C ☎ 17:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suspect this ip user to be the same ip user who instigated the last move request, so to answer your question, no I wasn't here to enter the debate but as you are unwilling to leave me alone, I have entered it below. Why are you trying to detract from my line of inquiry?--Ykraps (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All national varieties of English are acceptable in the spelling of article titles; we don't prefer one over another, so the move is unnecessary from the get-go. One possible argument I could see for restoration of the original title would be if (per the MoS) "no English variety has been established", but it seems quite clear that that's not the case here. Since the initial change in 2002 (and certainly since early 2007, the time of the last significant title-wrangling I could spot) the page has been stable and the current variant maintained consistently, so suggestions of current instability seem quite baseless. Further, the whole "stick with the original spelling" guideline exists to promote stability and deter pointless rename discussions like this, so invoking it to destabilize a long-standing title by needlessly swapping between equally valid alternatives goes against that spirit. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. And any reasonable closer will slap B2C with a trout for this twisting of RETAIN and his hypocrisy re stability, and will post a strong statement that this title has been stable for over a decade and this question must be speedily closed if it ever comes up again. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
To the contrary, anyone opposing this proposal should be slapped with a trout, for prolonging the inevitable, just like everyone opposing the Yoghurt/Yogurt change should have been slapped as well.

The problem with Huw's argument is that it's a matter of opinion. One can reasonably agree with it, or reasonably disagree. My point stands. If the original title is restored here then there will be no reasonable argument to move it again. The issue will have been finally settled, and that's the only way to settle it, just as was the case at Yogurt. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

B2C, you complain elsewhere in this discussion of editors not assuming good faith -- yet here you talk of people being slapped for "prolonging the inevitable". Your views are also opinions. How much support do your opinions have in this discussion? Omnedon (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am no apologist for В²C; however, he was "slapped" first. Next he will be accused of not turning another cheek for another trout-slap? And, sadly, he has only time tested logic on his side. Juan Riley (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
No, he doesn't have time-tested logic on his side. Omnedon (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and others. There was no reason why this page was moved to the current title and no reason it should remain. Calidum ¤ 02:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like this should be procedural closed. Based primarily on the one year move protect in place by Mike Cline who specifically stated consensus, and the discussion thus far is anything near consensus forming. I believe any further discussion will not bring any closer to consensus forming on this issue, and I reference Mike's closing comments from the prior RM. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Close and archive this as failing to respect the previous close which stated a 1 year moratorium. Note significantly that his close, including the moratorium, was unchallenged, and that current nomination introduced no now arguments or evidence, and failed to note the previous close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Prolong the inevitable. Why? Especially when this can be so easily settled with a decision that will leave nothing left to debate about.--В²C ☎ 18:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It's really not that much of a surprise is it? The logical points В²C has made have been ignored before and will be again. Which leads us into another cycle. It is somewhat humorous. See y'all again this time next year? Juan Riley (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: as someone who respects policy and procedure, I am astonished that you would really flippantly disregard the precedent already established here, as well as the general consensus by frequent RM volunteers about relisting closed discussions. However, as I mentioned earlier, it would be one thing if everyone was in support of this move, but it is clear, and continues to be clear there is a lack of consensus on this discussion. Why continue an effectively prohibited RM, when there is no consensus at all. Rather it is just working up peoples emotions over this issue... Is the retitling inevitable, probably, but the ends do not justify the means. Looking at the last two !votes, we have to completely appropriate votes, complete with references to applicable policy, yet diametrically opposing eachother. As with before, this will continue to be an issue. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I'm the WP equivalent of the hopeless romantic, only it's logic and reason prevailing that I'm hopelessly hoping for. --В²C ☎ 02:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you are. But thinking of your perspective of perfect titles, wouldn't you prefer to see policy change versus discussing articles on an individual basis. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@JuanRiley: no need to wait a year, rather I would have posted no comment had everyone respected the 1 year moratorium... which is just TWO months away... But alas, based on how this discussion is going, I would advise another one year wait... The efforts might be put to better use to change WP:TITLEVAR versus individual articles anyways, since the issue here is significantly more diverse than just Humour and Yogurt. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay:: I respect your well said take on the matter. Unfortunately or fortunately, someone else did bring up the issue slightly before the rather arbitrarily imposed moratorium ended. What's a fellow to do? Should I (the only person I speak for) have said to myself "self, I must not support given the moratorium"? I do believe that an underlying logic must underlie these issues. And that logic says: just return the article to it's original spelling usage and all the silly arguments will go away. This is what В²C has been saying long before I edited. And I mention him most explicitly because I have learned from him (whether he knows it or not) how to be civil when presenting the argument. Well perhaps he does it better than I. :) As always best wishes and thank you for your kind suggestions. (No sarcasm there.) Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@JuanRiley: I cannot suggest what you should have done. But as for me, well, you can see what I did. Instead of !voting, I chose rather to comment and perhaps point out the obvious that there isn't a WP:SNOW chance of this passing with consensus. And given that the same arguments are taking place, and we're technically violating the prior close, and the page is move protected, it seems rather pointless to continue to have a discussion which isn't going to change anything. And as I stated, I'm not sure this article is the right forum. It seems counter productive to continue to argue the merits of TITLEVAR article by article, instead of fixing the problem at TITLEVAR to begin with. My comment/perspective is that this request should close as improperly started, and the discussion and interested editors move to TITLEVAR where a more broad consensus can be reached, and the appropriately applied. There are SOME cases were there is clear preference to a variation because of it's more prominent use in a specific country. But a subject like humor/humour is not a clear cut case. There are hundreds of words out there like this and to individually argue them is going to result in a lot of inconsistency. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay:I thoroughly understand and have no problem with variant spelling conventions. This "pointless discussion" is, however, a result of inconsistently applied "community" and "consensus" standards. I expect this discussion to be closed soon with "no consensus". Sigh. And whether I am here or not a month or a year from now, 'twill be opened up again. Till then..with all the best.... Juan Riley (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I suggest that when the spelling was changed, the article was a stub: Unreferenced, a list of bullet points, poorly written, little more than a dictionary definition. In fact it seems a bit of a stretch to call it an article.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Now if you had said "in my opinion" and not "in fact", I would have thought okay someone's opinion that's different than mine. A good thing. So please do not say "in fact"! Tis only your opinion. In addition, I do note that even saying this much has you admitting to the possibility that original article retention might be a valid argument. Consider the stronger argument as formulated by В²C, the retention argument for changing will resurface again and again and again. You decide what you will. See ya. Juan Riley (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If you think this is an article, it is fortunate that you haven't tried to create one yourself. As for your suggestion that the issue will resurface; I don't, for one minute, doubt it. I am sure you and B2C will see to that. There will always be a handful of editors unable to accept consensus who will intiate move request after move request until all their opponents die of boredom. It's called the yogurt principle.--Ykraps (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, more ad hominem comments. The ironic part of this recent incarnation of this discussion is that the few Supporters of change are being civil and somewhat fatalistic. Meanwhile, some among the Opposers have been ...well...you know. As I said, have a nice day until the next time. Juan Riley (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ykraps, for the sake of argument, let's say it's true that the only way this article gets moved is if the opposers all die of boredom. Then what? It gets moved, and it gets moved to a title from which it cannot be moved again for any good policy-based reason. In other words, once moved as proposed here, it will be stable and uncontested, unlike the current situation, where the current title can be (and is) reasonably challenged. So, what's wrong with that? Why prolong the current contested situation? Seriously. --В²C ☎ 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? You can’t see anything wrong in behaving like that? As to your ridiculous notion that there will be no policy-based reason to change it back, I can think of at least two: RETAIN (which is your argument) refers to established spelling not original spelling and therefore favours humour (established more than 13 years, as opposed to humor, less than a year ); and of course, TITLECHANGES supports humour because of its stability, and even if it wasn’t stable, humour would still be favoured as the first non-stub.--Ykraps (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ykraps: I think that's significant, and I appreciate you drawing our attention to that point. To be clear, Wikipedia considers a page a stub if it's "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject"; it's difficult to see how a page consisting of little more than a bulleted list (which ends with the note, "there are many more, I just don't remember all the names") can reasonably qualify. That being the case, and given that the page subsequently was expanded into a proper encyclopedic article using the British spelling, then to me that seems to close to door pretty firmly on this proposal. Per MOS:RETAIN, the version used in the first non-stub version, which it instructs we are to consider the default, would be "humour". ╠╣uw [talk] 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Taint it nice that your opinions agree with your previously stated preconceived notions? Moreover, once again are you Opposers admitting to a valid retention argument? Just asking. Juan Riley (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Like most everything else on WP, the definition of a "stub" has evolved. In August of 2002 a "stub" was merely a "very short article, generally of one paragraph or less"[9]. So by the standards of that time, this article, which consisted of multiple paragraphs, was beyond a stub. It was not a stub, and yet the title and content was changed only to switch from the original variety of English to another, a practice already opposed by community consensus, and remedied by reverting the original. The fact that it was not remedied sooner is irrelevant. It should have been, and it's never too late. Now is good. --В²C ☎ 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

So you suggest we consider this 2016 proposal under the guidelines as they were in 2002? That's... novel. If you want to go that route, then respectfully I have to point out that RETAIN didn't even exist at the time, at least not in the form that supporters currently cite; in fact, I see that the entire Manual of Style had amassed a total of six edits and was less than a page.[10] So shall we give all the cited guidelines here the Wayback Machine treatment, or none of them? (Or shall we pick and choose?) ╠╣uw [talk] 11:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying be reasonable. If you're going to use the go back to the variety used in the first non-stub rule, and you're trying to determine when it first applied, it's not reasonable to use a 2016 interpretation of "non-stub" when evaluating actions, taken and protests made, 10-15 years ago. The point is this: for the purposes of this rule, the original definition of non-stub makes more sense. That is, if an article is a stub in the old sense, okay, you can change the variety. But once there are several paragraphs of text, no matter how incomplete, there is no justification to change the variety. When the English variety of this article first was challenged, that's how it was interpreted. Does that make sense? --В²C ☎ 02:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No!--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
B2C: But what you suggest (using the 2016 version of one guideline and the 2002 version of another) is entirely unreasonable. Picking and choosing your preferred past revisions of guidelines in order to try to justify your desired result has no support in any policy, guideline, or consensus I can find anywhere, as I suspect you're well aware. So, to answer your question succinctly: no. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You're being ridiculous. The rule was originally written to using the word "stub" when "stub" meant "no more than a paragraph". That's what it meant. That was the intent. Don't change the variety of English unless there's virtually no content. Many years later, just a few years ago, the meaning of the term "stub" expanded considerably. But this rule referring to stub shouldn't have to change accordingly. That's just being literal. Unfortunately, we often don't take a comprehensive view when changing definitions. Clearly the effect of changing this definition on this rule was not taken into account. Really, the rule should be updated to reflect the change, including by not using the word "stub" anymore since "stub" has changed meanings significantly and no longer means what it was intended to mean in this context. --В²C ☎ 17:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Huw, nowhere else in WP would we do what you're suggesting! If an article fails to meet today’s featured article criteria, it is improved or it is de-listed, we don’t try to apply the criteria as it was when the article was created. You are no stranger to primary topic debates, but I have never seen you suggest using the guidelines as they were before you rewrote them! You certainly wouldn't agree to an article being the primary topic because at the time it was written there were no ambiguous titles, would you?--Ykraps (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
B2C: I understand you feel the rules should be changed, and you're welcome to lobby for your new interpretations of STUB, RETAIN, or others in the appropriate forums (strange and unworkable though your interpretations seem to me). Until and unless that happens, though, we judge present requests by using our present guidelines – not those from the distant past or the hypothetical future. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the rules should be changed. The apparent meaning of this rule was inadvertently changed when the definition of stub was changed. I see no reason to believe that the definition of stub was changed in order to change the meaning of RETAIN. The meaning of RETAIN should be changed, if it is to be changed, purposefully and knowing, not implicitly and accidentally by changing the meaning of terms in which it is expressed. What should be changed now is the wording, so it's not using the word "non-stub" but still retains the meaning it had before the meaning of "stub" (and thus "non-stub") was changed, so that the accidental and implicit rule change is reversed. But in the mean time here we can recognize that's what happened and interpret the rule in the way it was always intended to be understood. --В²C ☎ 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I think you're clutching at straws with that argument and it is not one I'd lend my support to but even then, the first definition of stub appears in 2005, here [11] and states, "A stub is an article which is clearly too short, but not too short to be useless. On a general manner, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title. This usually means stubs are about the length of 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that a longer article may be a stub if the topic is complex enough - conversely, a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub". As humour is a complex thing, I would argue that even by 2005 standards, the article is still a stub. It doesn't even describe humour as an emotion so doesn't even "define the articles title". Now if you've nothing else to add can we close this, as there clearly isn't consensus here, and I have some articles I wish to improve.--Ykraps (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Seconded, though in closing I should note that under no definition from any year would the 2002 version clearly qualify as non-stub; as you rightly point out, articles on important or complex topics have a higher bar. (Also BTW, Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, to which STUB originally redirected, described it earlier, but again said only what "generally" makes a stub – which again gets to your point.) Happy editing! ╠╣uw [talk] 18:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: of course you would prefer the Canadian English Spelling... :) But how do you guys spell it up there, eh!? Tiggerjay (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
With a Molson's? Juan Riley (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Foster's: it's Australian for humour! H-U-M-O-U-R... B-E-E-R... Omnedon (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post move closure discussion

There was no discussion by the closer on which merits they choose to end this discussion, and what arguments and policies they used to form their opinion that this should be closed. Would the closer like to elaborate on why they choose to close without giving a rationale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:91C8:BD89:C688:82F7 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If anything you should explain your time-wasting and borderline vexatious move request. Consensus was clear and it hasn't changed form the other move requests. AusLondonder (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm certain I did,in my rationale for requesting the move. I've happily explained why I think this title is a violation of ENGVAR and should be moved back. If you don't agree with me, that is your opinion, but to consistently go onto talk pages and accuse people of vandalism for not holding your viewpoints is disingenuous, and quite certainly not WP:CIVIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:7D9E:3210:5F8:58E9 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As a point of order, there is no requirement in WP:RMCI that RM closers must provide rationale for the close. Although providing rationale is not discouraged, it can at times inflame rather than bring closure to the naming issue. In contentious issues like this one, whatever rationale is provided will only be accepted by 50% of the participants and thus contribute nothing relevant to the article or its title. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:ADMINACCT apply to RM closures? "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." --В²C ☎ 00:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This article will still be contentious until this is solved by the yogurt principle, I think. ~~July 22nd 2016.
Perhaps. But please learn to sign your posts correctly. Juan Riley (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Humour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

British English??

Why is this article in British English, when it was started in 2001 in American English, and continued that way for a year before it was unilaterally changed to British English, against WP:ENGVAR? I do notice that many articles are being changed to British English, and editor who use American English seem to not care nearly as much as when articles that are in British English are changed to American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Humour, particularly dry humour, has strong national ties to Britain. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Pburka: You're joking, right? Humor is a universal human phenomena; it's hardly isolated to one geographical region. If anything, American culture is stereotypically much "funnier", whereas British culture is stereotypically more mundane. JDiala (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There is anecdotal evidence that some Americans are unable to even recognize, let alone appreciate, a dry wit. Pburka (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's he most pathetic thing I have ever heard. Somebody should change it back to "humor".83.187.175.181 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
For discussion regarding spelling please use Talk:Humour/Spelling. 89.204.137.148 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You're proving his point, 83.187.175.181. ;) Humour it is. See Talk:Humour/Spelling GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Why is the default in this AMERICAN source (Wikipedia) the British spelling? And before someone tries to lecture me on the 1828 date for Webster's simplification, keep in mind that most of these words are from Latin, where "or" was the proper ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8400:672C:F063:96D4:C3CB:A63F (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The language variant used in Wikipedia has nothing to do Wikipedia being hosted in the US. Articles use many different versions of English (American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc.) depending on whether the article has close ties to a particular English version or, if none, which version the article was written in when it reached article (rather than stub) status. Wikipedia is not an "American source". Meters (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm half thinking this is just the same IP every time. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
But this article did start in American English. It was moved to British English completely against policy, and everytime someone wants to move it back, the British throw up a "Royal" fuss. The IP (not me) isn't wrong in asking why this article isn't in American English, as that's where it started. I'm just noting this here, because it is, still, in 2017 a contentious issue. 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:B420:3F90:66EC:69B1 (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a contentious issue. There are some people on Wikipedia that get in a fuss about spelling variants while probably around 95% couldn't care less. There's no reason to change ANY article title to another language variant right now unless it's either recently been moved as an act of provocation or its subject clearly related to an English-speaking country. It simply doesn't matter otherwise. You may be implying here that changing it to American English would prevent further complaining but I can assure you that it wouldn't. And yes, we have a rule for articles of this kind having to stick with their original title, but that is a guideline and not a commandment. There are plenty of examples of titles inconsistent with this on both sides of the spectrum and again, it simply doesn't matter. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. It still bothers people. This article should follow wikipedia guidelines and be in American English. 2001:630:12:1090:6805:15D3:B7DF:B43A (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This page is still in violation of EngVar, is that correct? Just keeping track, as it should have been moved back to "humor" over a decade ago now.

Cheers 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:10A1:CBE8:C524:FFCD (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just making sure that the powers that close the debate on Humor/Humour, it's still in violation of Engvar, and still improperly titled. @Born2cycle:2A02:C7D:CA94:FB00:5887:6925:D47D:34A0 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Defamatory humour

Basically, humour refers punches to create laugh on moments, opinion someone's action,

We should always consider our way of comedy wouldn't hurt anyone's emotions, it should not be discriminative. Hits786 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC) memes...

MR bean???

Really, why is Mr Bean the flag-ship of the topic? It's one of the worst movies in history! I didnt laugh a single time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.186.249 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple more comedians to balance things up a bit. Biscuittin (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The entry on Theories of Humour is all wrong! Raskin's SSTH (1985) is not the same as Attardo & Raskin's GTVH (1991) - I corrected that now but still it is a very poorly written article and does not do justice to the wide area of research and the varieties of existing theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.185.18 (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He is a good comedian Ganesaninfo (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC) He is a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.250.244.20 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

I want to add some additional information to the section "Physiological effects" in paragraph 3.

Here is my edit: There are also potential relationships between humour and having a healthy immune system as it was viewed as an important source for both physical and psychological health for a long time. SIgA is a type of antibody that protects the body from infections. In a method similar to the previous experiment, the participants were shown a short humorous video clip and then tested for the effects. The participants showed a significant increase in SIgA levels.[32] There have also been reports of scientific evidence that humor can help with health issues such as allergy symptoms, pain tolerance, heart diseases, strokes, and fluctuating blood sugar, albeit the current evidence for these claims are weak and need to be thoroughly tested. As of now, it is inferred that rather than amplifying the idea of improved health and longevity, a more optimistic outlook on life may lead to a greater inclination for taking risks and ignoring possible health problems that leads to a risk of early death.[55]

This is the source I used: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249929599_Sense_of_humor_and_physical_health_Theoretical_issues_recent_findings_and_future_directions TVang007 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think that it's necessary to add a paragraph about potential relationships, reports of scientific evidence that are weak and untested. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"funny" vs "humour"

Hi,

It seems that "the tendency of experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement" is the definition of "funny" or "comical", not "humour". "Humour" is the tendency of someone to point out and emphasize the comical nature of something (or the mental state that leads to this tendency). At least the French and Spanish Wikipedia define "humour" this way. The English Wiktionary defines "humour" almost the same way.

Am I wrong ?

PS : I can't modify the article, because it is semi-protected and I didn't contribute a lot on the English Wikipedia. If I'm right, could someone modify the introduction ?

Thank you,

CaLéValab (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that humour is not a tendency of experiences to provoke laughter or amusement; rather, it is a quality of experiences or persons, namely, as Wiktionary's definition says: the quality of being amusing, comical, funny. The difference between a tendency and a quality is subtle and I'm not sure how to explain it. I do not agree that humour is the tendency of someone to point out and emphasize the comical nature of something (or the mental state that leads to this tendency). Rather, humour is the aptness for pointing this out, or it is the comical nature of that something itself. Aptness and tendency are not the same thing. Rp (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Rp (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patel25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Humour article appears on No Such Thing as a Fish

This article is mentioned in a fact on the podcast No Such Thing as a Fish, the fact being one of the presenters, Dan Schreiber, is now the face of this article. It is episode 444, which debuted today. ISD (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The image was only added a couple of weeks before that episode was recorded, and no disrespect to Dan or Jimmy but it's kind of a weird one and I'm not sure it's an improvement on the previous images of some people laughing.
What is A comedian performing a stand-up comedy with a viewer (Jimmy Wales) laughing even trying to describe? What is Jimmy "viewing"? Do we not have any good photos of a seated audience laughing at a stand-up comedian? Few stand-ups perform to a single audience member who stands next to them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Lord Belbury, Well... here's my reasoning: The previous images are not about humor, they're just showing faces of people laughing. That's not humor, that's laughing. Sure, they might laugh because they have been told a joke, but just having faces of people laughing does not convey the full idea on what does humor meant. Humor involves an action that makes people laugh. Searching through the Wikimania archives I found a guy (Jimmy) laughing because a comedian saying something funny, and so, I slap that picture in. I should have been less lazy and search for a more professional image for the lead image. In fact, I should do that now... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it would definitely be better to show what's being laughed at. Best I can find is File:Game of Laugh - Comedy improv at "Yo Mama's", New Orleans 02.jpg if cropped to focus more on the audience on the right. I'm checking https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Laughing hoping for a photo of a regular person just telling a joke conversationally and another laughing at it, but nothing yet. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

I would like to edit. 72.138.63.126 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, looks like you gave up and made your edit at Humour (disambiguation) instead, where it's been reverted as vandalism. --Belbury (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Others believe that 'the appropriate use of humor can facilitate social interactions'."

Sentence implies that there are people who disagree. Absurd statement, possible meta-humour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.208.120 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15:22, 7 August 2016 UTC (UTC)

"Facetious" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Facetious and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 2 § Facetious until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humour/Archive_1&oldid=1256345022"