HRWiki talk:Running gag

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Definition: I'm following you, but I'm a little hesitant to say that the distinction is necessary...)
(→Definition)
Line 12: Line 12:
Of course this isn't necessarily the best definition (that's what this project is here to decide), but it's the one I use, and I think it makes sense. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course this isn't necessarily the best definition (that's what this project is here to decide), but it's the one I use, and I think it makes sense. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:I think I see; so something like [[Puking]] may be more of a "repeated joke", than a "running gag".  I think that the distinction is a true one, but in some ways it seems like splitting hairs to me.  Do you think it might be confusing to some users to have separate "repeated joke" and "running gag" categories? {{User:Trey56/sig}} 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think I see; so something like [[Puking]] may be more of a "repeated joke", than a "running gag".  I think that the distinction is a true one, but in some ways it seems like splitting hairs to me.  Do you think it might be confusing to some users to have separate "repeated joke" and "running gag" categories? {{User:Trey56/sig}} 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 +
::It won't be difficult for them to navigate through the categories. There will be notes and links put up. —[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
== What to do with non-bona-fide running gags ==
== What to do with non-bona-fide running gags ==

Revision as of 13:57, 10 June 2006

Contents

Initial reaction

I'm kind of lost why this is needed --Dacheatbot · Communicate 21:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a place to organize thoughts in order to discover (or rediscover) the definition of a running gag, and what to do with topic-unifying articles that aren't. It is slowly getting started and organized; have patience. —BazookaJoe 21:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know it was a problem `--Dacheatbot · Communicate 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You'll soon see, once we separate the true gags from the non-gags. —BazookaJoe 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition

That last point is mine... I'll go into more detail here...

  • Inside Jokes are things that aren't funny unless you know what they're referring to. Otherwise they'll seem either inconspicious or non sequitur. Clear examples are things like $11.01, or "Thanks for breaking my moose lamp" in portrait.
  • Running Gags are things that are (at least a little bit) funny per se (ie funny on their own), but get funnier each time you see them. Most of the humour comes from recognising that it's a running gag. Clear examples are things like the Floppy Disk Container or Homestar's Pants. Note that the appearances have to be strongly linked – it's a repetition of the same joke, or at least the same premise, each time.
  • <Other things that we have to find a good name for> are similar things that reappear on the site, but aren't necessarily any funnier from having happened before, usually from being too loosely linked. Like the new School article – the existance of Crazy Go Nuts University doesn't make Teen Girl Squad Issue 4 any funnier, for instance. "Repeat Appearances" or "Repeated Objects" or "Repeated Things" or something similar would be my vote for the new name for this category.

Of course this isn't necessarily the best definition (that's what this project is here to decide), but it's the one I use, and I think it makes sense. --phlip TC 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I see; so something like Puking may be more of a "repeated joke", than a "running gag". I think that the distinction is a true one, but in some ways it seems like splitting hairs to me. Do you think it might be confusing to some users to have separate "repeated joke" and "running gag" categories? Trey56 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It won't be difficult for them to navigate through the categories. There will be notes and links put up. —BazookaJoe 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do with non-bona-fide running gags

E.L. Cool and I had a brainstorming session on IRC about that ^^^. We think that since they are more like lists, they should be counted as such. For simplicity, we think the articles should be put into subcategories in Category:Lists in the same way they are put into subcategories in Category:Running Gags. —BazookaJoe 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And the name "General Lists" popped up. i.e.: Category:General Lists of Food for articles like Pizza, Bread, Butter and so on. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... "General" sounds too undescriptive. Maybe if the categories were called "Category:Appearance lists of food" and such. But that sounds too clunky. I'll go with "General" for now. —BazookaJoe 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I thinks I has the solution! My problem was the wording of the category names made it sound like the articles were something that they weren't. I think that names like "Category:General activity appearance lists" will work. —BazookaJoe 01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article list

This articles may or may not be running gags under the new defenition.

— Elcool (talk)(contribs) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki_talk:Running_gag"
Personal tools