Category talk:Wikipedia humor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let us joke only, and not fool around... 
--Bhadani 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] VFD immediately
I personally find this, along with the entire concept of humor unencyclopedic and a logical candidate for deletion. Reasons being the section states no true facts and is very obviously not bound to a neutral point of view (as all things should be). Being a man who has lived his entire life near devoid of whimsy and other childish distractions I can safely say that humor is but an illusion to mask our drone-like compulsions and that this sort of thing, especially on an encyclopedia is pointless. I'm sure many respected members of this business would agree with me when I say that this information-website would not miss a feeble tumor on this noble superhuman-brain.
Remember, this is a website made to inform the public, not to make them happy. Mr. Brigg's Ink 23:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I agree with you. Brave warrior 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How about a name change?
Why not call this "Wikipedia's Poor Attempts At Humor"? 8-) RocketMaster 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete all these pages
No, some people will not find these pages funny at all and someone will find annoyed by these pages. Also, what is the point of a page only being used for joke purposes. Please reply in here and also on my talk page if anyone disagrees with me. Brave warrior 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) This is a encyclopedia and not a online joke book, all these pages should not be in Wikipedia. Brave warrior 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- My reply can be found here. Unschool 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I need a way to make funny versions of pages.--Arceus fan 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
Is there anywhere where we can archive hilariously droll edit summaries? Someone just removed an insane ramble on the Elizabeth II page about how the queen and her adorable corgis killed and ate the former leader of the Labour party with the edit summary "remove speculations." Thank goodness they were bold and didn't just hesitantly put a "citation needed" tag on it! --Jfruh (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
