Talk:Self-referential humor

message: I think that I should suggest that someone add in a reference to http://xkcd.com/33/ (a short comic strip about self-referential humor). 
204.152.235.217 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we linked and or mentioned every mention or example of the phrase self-referencial humour in media, this article would be bloated and annoying. TheHYPO 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's no references! We need some... Maybe we can reference this article. Get it? --Phred Levi (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: I was directed here from the RAS syndrome page. First thing I wondered was, "Why are there no examples?" Read the talk page, checked the history. While I do agree that a lengthy "Examples" section will only be detrimental to the article, eliminating all examples is not the best option. Without an example, the (very short, as of right now) article is a bit vague. In my opinion, one and only one example should suffice. The question becomes, then, what example to use? Well, since the RAS syndrome page already defines the term as self-referencing humor, we can play it safe and have this page use it as an example. Whether it is or is not a good example was decided for us, since its own page claims it is (I know everything is always up for debate, but for the sake of simplicity, falling back on what's already been established is a safer move to make). 64.203.238.108 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added example 

message: *I was requested to clarify on my talk page. The RfC closure statement said, "There's consensus to remove the disputed material." MPants was the only editor who thought that that some of the material could be kept without finding a better source for it. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypocrisy of this comment is mind-blowing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised the matter at ANI, here. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI? REALLY??? This an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem"? I've been traveling, so unable to really participate, but what was the hurry to close in the first place? As more than one editor (including me) has pointed out, the RfC was ill-framed in the first place, and that ought be have been taken into account in the close (including the decision on when to close). Gotta run, train to catch. EEng 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-closure discussion

message: *  I have restored my close but kept the subsequent discussion. If you would like to challenge my close, please take it to AN. Reverting a close without discussing it with the closing editor is entirely inappropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The atop was added in response to a specific closure request made by PhotogenicScientist. Per WP:CLOSE, if you want to re-open you're supposed to take it to AN. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, not an RfC but a talk page back-and-forth discussion which could lead to an eventual RfC. The long-term link, of course, should stay as a perfect 'example' of 'Other examples'. Not actually a joke, as some editors claim, the link serves the purpose of both educating readers who may not have gotten the point and gives them another chance to read the lead and descriptors concerning the concept. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire so called "debate" is just one person harassing another person they have a grudge against over a period of years. This page should be indef ECP'd, which will put a stop to this page being used as a vector for harassment. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that you mention page protection - I already made a request for that, and was told it wouldn't be done until "the discussion is closed for a stronger consensus," or something. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's disappointing. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

text: What good reason is there for invoking Ignore All Rules? What important aspect of self-referential humor does it highlight that is likely to be unclear otherwise? 149.86.189.197 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Update: I was taken to ANI for this, the 149 IP was blocked for block evasion, and I changed the hatnote to a  that links directly to the subsection, which I think is an improvement but revert me if you disagree (and you're not evading a block). Levivich (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I quite like the joke link and would support it remaining. It's funny and it doesn't hurt anything. Loki (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my view on it as well, in its current form as a  hatnote linking back to the same section in the "Other examples" section. There was a time when there were too many of these self-referential jokes in this article, and some of them were more disruptive than funny, but in its current form, as one hatnote, I think it's harmless and funny and should remain. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine with including the compromise hatnote. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only had a glance but I think I would too. EEng 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I am in favor of keeping the link as a valid example of self-referential humor. I do not believe that it is particularly confusing. This is an article about humor, so a little bit of relevant humor is reasonable and fitting. Nor do I agree with the assertion that this joke is in any way lame. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The current version seems fine. There's a small difference between "encyclopedic" and "extremely dry tone" or "wet blanket" (Note to self: figure out how a proposal can be dry and wet at the same time), and a little whimsy where appropriate can have a positive effect as long as it is used sparingly. Unlike much of the content from the former WP:BJAODN, the current version isn't vandalism, is unlikely to be a cause of significant confusion, is related to the article content as an illustrative example, and doesn't seem likely to cause any harm. It's been around in some form or another for the vast majority of the article's history, and was first inserted back in 2005. Might as well let it stay in a harmless form. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-close discussion 

message: is to inform the reader, not to entertain editors. Galagalen (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the extensive, recent discussion above regarding this exact point. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

text: You can inform while illustrating... Buffs (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of an encyclopaedia 

message: While I agree the joke (including a link to the page within the page itself) doesn't necessarily fit in the introduction paragraph, could we not place a self referencing link in the: see also section? MonkeyEditsTM (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, best to keep it to one joke in the article. There were enough people opposed to even that amount of WP:HUMOR in this humor-related article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @PhotogenicScientist You say to keep it too one joke in article. That's great, but I can't seem to find the specific joke you're talking about. could you point it out for me? Thank you! MonkeyEditsTM (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out 'Other examples' PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self referential humor joke