Talk:Sarcasm mark

message: On typophile.com, I have proposed and invited discussion about a new design and active typographic implementation of an irony mark, and have begun to include it in my own fonts. Being as I suggest this be used to encompass sarcasm as well as other forms of irony (sarcasm is a type of greater group) I thought it would be relevent to mention it here. As I am attempting to inspire other type designers, and draw from thier expertise, this may be of some note. There are further details, as well as a link, on the irony mark's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irony_mark . --Choz 07:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new twist on the debate 

message: If the contributor dislikes the clean-up tag, maybe they should do the clean-up themself.
It could be better. Why is there no image of the SARCASM MARK, if that is the topic?
Please don't tell me there is a link buried in there somewhere? That tells me there needs to be a cleanup, or some thought, and think why would people look this up? They have seen the mark and want to know what it means, or they have heard of it and want to know what it looks like.
Have at it and I look forward to the update!
--APDEF (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: There's a link in the "External Links" section that discusses using percent signs as indications of sarcasm. The authors of that external page trace it back to a YahooGroups post in 2003. However, I remember a sysop of a local (South Florida) BBS suggesting using percent marks as "sarcasm delimiters" in 1994 (more or less -- the board only existed between 1993 and 1997, if recollection serves). I've been curious about their origins ever since, and have included them in the wiki-FAQ for the Barbelith.com community. I don't know if they're original to my BBS sysop or not, and they seem like the kind of concept that could easily develop in parallel in many different communities at once. 
Has anyone else here run into their use? And if so, should they be made part of this article? --grant 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarcasm delimiters

message: Just wondering; wouldn't it be a good idea to make the Mark of sarcasm page redirect here? Or is that not the same thing? bb 13:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mark of sarcasm]] #REDIRECT? 

message: I don't know much about Wikipedia's policies or anything, but near the end of the "Examples" section of the article, there is a statement that doesn't seem to be quite encyclopedic in nature ("However, most of the time sarcasm is obvious to anybody of reasonable intelligence, so a simple question mark is often used").  Does a statement like that really belong in this article?  I would delete it, but I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia to know if that's a good thing to do or not. --70.238.201.208 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps it's badly phrased, but it echoes a valid point.  Sarcasm is a form of irony; irony is about hidden meaning.  If you have a typographic mark to indicate it, it's not hidden any more, is it?  Therefore (ironically!) any statement tagged with such a mark becomes neither ironic nor sarcastic...   78.148.105.189 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isn't valid at all. Sarcasm isn't meant to be hidden, that's why when it's used in speech it's spoken in a special tone of voice. It only seems hidden when it's written down, making some way of marking it desirable. --86.135.178.19 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate remark? 

message: One of the Wikipedia guidelines is that a topic be noteworthy.  One of the criteria for this is that it has been cited by others.  I note here that the ONLY citation in this article is a request to include the mark in the Unicode version of the Ethiopian script.  Yet all the discussion has been about use in English.  And this discussion page is much longer than the article itself!  Unless somebody adds some real meat to the article itself, I suggest deleting it altogether as not being noteworthy, or possibly incorporating it into some more general article on punctuation.Pete unseth (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather strongly question the notability of Temherte Slaq, but I can't be certain, not knowing anything about the Ethiopic language.  The notability of other proposed indicators of sarcasm is shaky at best.  I don't feel like this article must be deleted at all costs, but given the dubious notability and poor state of the article, I wouldn't be sad to see it go.  WP:PROD would probably be the next step, if it hasn't been attempted already. -Verdatum (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this truly noteworthy?

message: There should really be a picture of the symbol in some prominent, obvious place on the page, similar to the one on the "Irony Mark" page. 71.255.144.214 (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: image