Uncyclopedia talk:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid

“People say funny and stupid things. But mostly stupid.”

~ Oscar Wilde on Uncyclopedia: How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid

.

“This page is about showing humor without being stupid”

~ Capt Obvious on Writing

“That Capt Obvious and Oscar cunt are no fun”

~ Everyone

Examples

These examples are not particularly good, I find myself laughing at the immature one (although perhaps this is due to the context of the article) rather than the more developed one. I propose to make the stupid one less funny, or the more intelligent one more funny; after all, claiming Erik Estrada was aborted is pretty damn funny; saying he was actually a highway patrolman is not - it's a simple clash of controversy versus creativity --Olipro (Harass) 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can thank Izwalito for this page being protected. Please add your suggestions for funny guidelines here. --Chronarion 15:29, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Another rule should be "Keep some connection to the truth". Inconsistency has its limits, because most things are expected to remain within the same general domain as its real-life counterpart. For example, Oprah is still a person, and entries mentioning her without knowing anything else will assume she is a person. Suppose I decided to make Bill Cosby an ocean liner. That might be funny but it would make nonsense out of anyone who wrote an article assuming Bill Cosby was a person. I bring this up to point out that sticking to the truth in at least a general and vague sense will make linking to the article less of a problem. --George guy 15:52, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Before I write an article, I like to do a search for the article to see if anybody has mentioned it before, and if so, try to conform to what's already been written. For example, if article X says that person Y comes from country Z, mention that when you write your article on country Z. It gives the site as a whole a sense of cohesiveness, and makes it look less like a bunch of random gibberish some people threw together. --UnholySauce 16:10, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Well, yes, but I was referring to a more general level of detail. If Z is in real life a South American country, passing references to Z, linked or not, will probably depend on the idea that Z is at the very least a place, so it could make for complications if the article on Z declares that it's a breeed of goat.--George guy 16:19, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

a picture is worth a thousand words. Vitamins is an example of a slightly funny image. George W. Bush is funny. Nostradamus is friggin hilarious. having a good image with a funny caption can really make an article a riot, as well as get people glancing over articles to chuckle and read further. more reads = more edits = better uncyclopedia. --Metaphysical 16:29, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Just to make sure we're all on the same page here... my thing was a general statement, not a direct response to what George Guy said. He responded as if I was contradicting his post, which I wasn't trying to do. --UnholySauce 19:42, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Oh trust me, we all think you were. and we're judging you for it. big time. don't worry -- i'll pray for your eternal soul, as it'll burn in internet hell for ever and ever (which is a long time)........ don't worry 'bout it. :) --Metaphysical 19:53, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

About Not everyone on the planet is male.: since when uncyclopedia must be politically correct?? It is not male fault that small number of woman read, edit and add articles. --MaDeR 10:30, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. Women don't read because they feel alienated by the type of humour on Uncyclopedia, as would any reasonable person. --poorsod^{I crave recognition} 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I call upon articles like Years of incredible solitude at the hands of our giant ape overlords who like human breast milk in their coffee and The Epoch of Great Chewing that follows a Non-discernable Pattern based on String Theory and Molar Infections - This stuff is utter nonsensical ravings. Not funny.

Please avoid:

• Turning the title of articles into whole sentences
• Making the article complete gibberish that you wrote on an orange peel during an acid trip
• Encouraging more of the same by putting brackets [[ ]] around random long phrases.

thank you and good night. --Metaphysical 20:39, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Unprotected. --Chronarion 23:19, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Suggestion: Quoting funny things is unfunny

I can't believe people put in Monty Python quotes verbatim. Or Douglas Adams quotes verbatim. Or tired old jokes they happen to know on a topic. It's bad enough finding yourself down the pub with such people, where at least it isn't written down.

• Quoting Monty Python is not funny.
• Quoting Douglas Adams is not funny.
• Quoting Spinal Tap is not funny.
• Quoting Chuck Norris facts are not funny.
• Quoting any other comedians or comic writers is not funny.
• Quoting old jokes is a worthless waste of wiki western-digital disk storage. Whereas the uncyclopedia itself is a worthy waste of wiki western-digital disk storage.
• Starting from Monty Python and riffing on it is not funny, unless it would work without the Monty Python. In which case take it away. The monty python part, I mean.
• Same for Douglas Adams and any other comic writer.

Can that be put any more bluntly? Instruction creep is of course bad, and comes from the fallacy that people read instructions at all. But they do serve as guidelines for those with the flamethrowers. - David Gerard 21:30, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Need further help on being funny?

Just click here to witness comedic genius in action.

</ego>

Haha.

--Savethemooses 20:18, 27 May 2005 (EDT)

An Encyclopedia Gone Bad

On the issue of staying close to reality, I think articles should try and sound, moslty, like they are from an actual encyclopedia. Stuff like chatty, informal commentry is found in Wikipedia, but it still looks unprofessional, like anybody wrote it (which they did, obviously). This should be like a real Encylcopedia, gone bad. One where the writers were lazy and used 1920's definitions of evolution, one with un-pc racist attitudes (parodies, not actual racism), stuff like that. See here: Chickens

And it's been said a thousand times, but what is funny about rambling, divergent stories about how Tom Cruise invented Mongoose in 1933? It's just gibberish. Can we just delete all gibberish unless there is a reason for it? I say screw being polite to people who write it. Comedy is at stake here people! Let's write some jokes.

Here it is in capital letters for emphasis: JOKES ARE FUNNY. MENTAL PATIENT RAMBLINGS ARE MENTAL PATIENT RAMBLINGS.

Yeah, I have the same problem. I think that it should read like an uncontrolled wikipedia, just without trolls. Basicly the truth, but exagerated into absurdity by bias, halfthrought ideas and apparently written mostly by people with only a basic idea of what they are writing about. Lord-z 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice rules for writing humor.

It'd be nice if the retard Something Awful writers followed these rules too. Maybe that and if Lowtax pulled his head out of his capitalist ass the site might be occasionally funny again. --66.98.148.14 08:13, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Something Awful is they think if telling a joke once is funny, then telling it 1000 times will make it 1000 times as funny (instead of just, y'know, repetitive). I understand it's easier for them to parrot stuff other goons say rather than showing some creativity and making up their own material, but it's still pretty lame and really drags down the quality of the site. —Mad Anthony Wayne 09:14, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this stuff.

*The truth is often funnier than flat out nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth. 

:*Example: "Erik Estrada is an intergalactic poo warrior who was aborted by his mother during the third week of pregnancy."  
::Stupid. Pointless drivel. 

:*Example: "Erik Estrada is an American (possibly Costa Rican) television actor.  

Known for a succesful career in the California Highway Patrol following his retirement from the television business."

::Funnier because it's closer to the truth. "CHiPS" was a real TV show. Blending fact with fiction, or blurring that line makes for better comedy. Now, mind you, this is not a particularly hilarious line, but you get the idea. 
*Note: Even funnier because Eric Estrada now appears on british television as a celebrity. 

Whoever wrote the examples got them backwards. "Intergalactic Poo Warrior" is actually much closer to the truth than "television actor" is.--Emily2531 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked the first one much better. Mostly because I don't see any sort of joke at all in the second one. --Nintendorulez 01:16, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with a Nintendo fan, but as you mis-spelt "rulez", I'll make an exception: do you think that if you "don't see any sort of joke at all" that means it's not funny, or does it moreso reflect on yourself? (oh, by the way, great Kevin Bacon reference) --Joachim22 06:26, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I anonymously agree with Joachim. The unexpected is funnier than the expected. Unexpected truth is funnier than gibberish, since you start to expect more gibberish. Cruel truth better still. The funniest stuff is cruel, unexpected, and true.

Like when John Bird jumps out at you with a dead baby in his mouth. --poorsod^{I crave recognition} 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Required Reading

I think every person who has a desire to write for Uncyclopedia should have to read this article in its entirity before they're allowed to create anything or make any changes to other people's genuinely funny articles. They should then be quizzed at length on its contents. I think a lot of people have just spent so much time watching Family Guy reruns and flash cartoons from Newgrounds that they've forgotten what real humor looks like (take that!). -- User:24.93.147.82

As long as it's entertaining, I'm happy. --Nerd42 01:33, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, Family Guy succeeds in being funny because of the clear definition of its own boundaries. UC does not have these, so we shouldn't try to be Family Guy. We're not.--poorsod^{I crave recognition} 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Message

First of all, I would like to say that I agree partially with User:24.93.147.82. People are not funny if they have the same sense of humor as Family Guy (Gosh what a stupid show!) and Newgrounds flashes. I do not think that this is a good guide to writing funny articles.

Objection 1: The truth is not mostly funnier than fiction. I mean, the example they gave? WTF, mate?

Objection 2: These guys are hypocrites. The Oscar Wilde thing is definetely a cliche. And it's an unfunny one too.

Objection 3: I quote, ""Eminem is the son of Dr. Dre and Queen Latifa" is much better".

This is not funny! It had an interesting point to it, but that doesn't make it funny.(The alternative is not funny either, to agree.)

Objection 4: I quote again, "Creationism is the idea that God was so bored out of his mind he spent 6 days creating everything on our planet, and for good measure put in several jokes to fool us into believing it must have taken him much longer."

This is stupid. It is a repeated joke about God. Another point about cliches.

Objection 5: A picture does not have to be altered to be funny. A funny caption under a normal picture can be funny. The caption can even be normal and seem funny with the picture.

I hope you take my advice. Feel free to message me, Anonymuos8.

My oppinion is: fart. -keke^_^

(I disagree with it all --131.227.231.216 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC) )

Blanking Articles = Stupid

I would like to say that blanking articles is just stupid and is still considered Vandalism, even at a place where you are allowed to be funny. Also, do not blank entire articles only to add >700 KB of crap like "Ima Tumor Ima Tumor Ima Tumor", "I LIKE DP! I LIKE DP!" or "WACKA! WACKA! WACKA!". It may be funny to YOU but this is to be funny to at least the majority of people who read these articles, and many times you are blanking several other funny jokes. Please do not do this, as you will get banned.

Also, never ever ever ever EVER quote Chuck Norris facts. Just because the Horde in WoW worship Chuck Norris and wish to do naughty things to him doesn't mean those fact are actually funny anymore. They cause intelligent people to groan in pain and are so old they're as funny as blanking articles.

Um, what are the chances anyone who's likely to do this sort of thing is going to read these sorts of instructions, anyway? --BruceR 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero. Think of this as more of an Obituary Page, rather than a "how not to die" page. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 11/13 21:32

The Anti HTBFANJS

Has anyone made an article containing all the things the HTBFANJS article tells us not to do? As in everything? I would do it, but it would take too long.

Well, DUH! Check out the How To Be Stupid And Not Just Funny articoil!!!1

I cant think of who to attribute the quote on the "free will" page to

God/Forrest Gump/George W. Bush/Someone else/Who Who Who?--Mrasdfghjkl 07:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish

Hey buddy; I like the gibberish! well... as long as its not too out there.

Question when translating

Hi. I translated HTBFANS into Japanese Uncyclopedia.[1] ...However, I can't understand the following line.

Be sure your string of barely coherent prose does in fact contain at least one(1) degree of celsius between each serving — or 1/6 of a "Kevin Bacon."）

What's meaning of it? Is it a pure nonsense writing? Or, a double meaning in English peculiarity? Does the word "degree" contain other meaning than the temperature? (I can't understand though I read the article Kevin Bacon.) Please teach me, if the sentence has meanings other than meaningless. --Kasuga 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mostly meaningless, but also a bad pun (and "degree" has many meanings in english). It is sort of like trying to explan "Urusei Yatsura" to an english speaker. To explain: 1/6th of a "Kevin Bacon" is a degree (see wikipedia:Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon). No need to translate it, make up a funnier pun. --Splaka 05:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Finally, I came to understand it. It's certainly hard to explain in Japanese. --Kasuga 11:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord... you're trying to translate humor into another language? Good luck. The general rule when translating humor is, as Splarka said, simply to come up with a funny pun in the language you're translating to. This is especially true with complex puns like the one you mentioned above. I'm sure this is after the fact and isn't of much use to you, but can be used as a guideline just in case you decide to translate anything else from en.Uncyclopedia.  :) --<<>> 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Infinite Monkeys

If you have to explain why it's funny, or isn't funny, then it's not funny? Kapish? See, I am talking about being funny, and it's not funny. Just give the 1,000,000 monkeys their typewriters and see what happens. What happen? You see you, you like; you like, you buy!! Just stupid is funny

See above for a perfect example of being stupid and just not funny.--<<>> 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one tiny comment

Being silly about serious things is not funny, but being serious about silly things is. --Thematrixeatsyou 08:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What like: "Rape isn't funny, unless you're raping a clown?" Rinky Stingpiece 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(antimetaboles are a tidy way of sounding wise, but are clearly logically fallacious, e.g.: if it's funny it must be true; if it's true, it must be funny - so why aren't I laughing?)

We should list cliches to avoid

Or is there another page for doing that? (in which case, we should link to it) And when I say "cliches to avoid" I mean, subjects that have been beated to death. (like the russian reversal) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - including cliches like "beaten to death"? (even the word "cliche" is a cliche) Rinky Stingpiece 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect it please

Not everyone is old and admin, and I'd like to add some bits. Lysdexia 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

just a note

in the "The "@#$%^&*" Rule" section, it states that you don't ned to swear like a Marine Drill Sergeant... yet there are no 'drill sergeants' in the Marine Corps. they're called 'drill instructors.' just fyi.

/teuf

To behonest, you're lucky we managed to spell "marine" properly.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All of these are sergeants.

I don't get this

I often look around uncyclopedia when I have some spare time, as it something to do. I came across this article the other day, and I didn't get it. Its as if it telling me what I should find funny, and the things I should do to make everyone else think what I say is funny. Thats just stupid. How funny an article is depends of whos reading it, and its there opinion what is funny. Before I laugh at something, I don't think hmmmmm, actually, that isn't funny at all as that sarcasm is far to blunt, and not at all subtle. The article even goes as simply calling something I found amusing not humerous. WTF. Maybe I'm looking to deep into this, and this article is a really a terrible joke itself, sorry for waisting your time if so.

This article is designed to be a guide to maximize humor for the audience that Uncyclopedia is aimed at. This article actually have very useful tips for this purpose. The fact that you found one of the jokes funny that it says is not doesn't mean the article is wrong, necessarily, but that that particular kind of joke is generally not found funny here, and so it should not be included if writing an article (as others here will not find it funny). It's true that humor is a very subjective thing, but it must be geared toward your audience, and Uncyclopedia is generally geared toward an audience that's very broad but generally more educated than the average internet user. Or maybe more pretentious, the two seem to go hand in hand. Anyway, it's intended to help save you from being eaten alive by editors and your ego torn to shreds if you decide to write something.--<<>> 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretentious! Well, I never! /me puts glass of brandy on table, extinguishes pipe, and storms out. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I say! I didn't see you there, good chap! Accept my sincerest apologies! Is the foxhunt still on?--<<>> 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Suggestion

Add a link to the Three word article in Wilde's quote.

Done. -- The Zombiebaron 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a "Hypocrasy"?

A Much Needed Tag

The {{N-F}} Template now employs the tag. Use it and live. -- [citations needed] 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "humor"?

I've heard of humour, but what is "humor"? Is it like humus as opposed to houmous? Houmous being a thing you can eat; and humus being necessary for growing the houmous bushes? I.e.: humus precipitates earthy lips; whereas houmous precipitates girthy hips... ergo: if humour... never mind.

I don't see how that surreal line about Eric Estrada is less funny that the boring example that follows it. Promsan 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is humour?

When you say: "...is it like humus as opposed to houmous?..." Did you mean humous? Or is this like humor as opposed to humour? --Az MAH 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Humour vs Humus

surely it's obvious, if you want "humor", get an american to write it; if you want it to be funny get british people to write it.

seriously... do a survey of articles... which are the top 100 funniest articles... that's the best guide, not some jive ass robotic instructions on "hu-mOrrr" from Yankistanis. Rinky Stingpiece 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Being an American, I am obviously unfunny, and will stop writing at once. Good day, sirs. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:47, Aug 20, 2007

Erik Estrada issue

Well, I seem to be under the impression that nobody likes the first Estrada tip. So, instead of what's there, how about, "Erik Estrada is an American (possibly Costa Rican) television actor, known for a successful career in the California Highway Patrol following his retirement from the prostitution industry." Just a thought, was hoping to satire Hollywood a bit. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:52, Aug 20, 2007

It's not funny though...

Can somebody list "[something] was invented by George Bush / Oliver Letwin in 1768/1329 to [something] the [something else]" as completely and utterly stagnant?

It wasn't funny the first time I read it, despite this page suggesting that people always use this structure.

Seriously, it's not. Not even close.

It's listed under the "cliché" section as "not funny" already. I don't see where the page suggests that this is a good thing to use. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 13:25 Aug 28, 2007

Whaaaaa?

I like toilet humour! :(

Toilet humor can be funny. But, it must be very well executed to be funny for any significant number of people. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:07, Sep 22

Changed the examples

Let me know what you think. --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Real people's names

Why are real people's names are stupid and not funny? --Gangstah fo shizzle • MUN • Talk • Contributions • Article • Forum 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It creates an in-joke, exposes privacy, etc, etc.

Numbers should be changed

Instead of "Uncyclopedia gets over 300 new articles a day" it should be Over 9000. There should also be a 1337 reference somewhere. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Fucking. Way. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, whatever you say, ZeldaFan... P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:46, Sep 27

Also, we need to take out the reference to Chuck Norris not being funny, because Chuck pwns and is hilarious in everyway. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

im with this guy, uncyclopedia is trying to elimineate competition, chuck norris jokes ARE funny, and uncyclopedia's soviet russia jokes cant ever replace them, please do fair play uncyclopedia 92.97.254.73 17:38, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

New tip for humo(u)r?

I was thinking about this page, and then back to my first featured article. I thought that, since irony fueled that page, couldn't it be useful for others? Maybe it needs a bullet in the "Some basic techniques of humor writing" section. However, I really can't think of much to say about irony (oh the irony?) and I'd feel like a pretentious jerk linking to my own page oh HTBFANJS. Any suggestions? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:53, Sep 29

I was thinking a while ago that this needed some type of irony section in this factory of slave-forced humo(u)r techniques, but some stuff in here sort of help you with it if you think about it, like misdirection. That's like irony, is it not? --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose irony is a type of misdirection, or maybe the other way around, but I would like to see a section on irony specifically. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:01, Oct 13

Humor vs Humour resoloution

my suggestion to the humor vs humour issue: use a regexp to represent it:

humou?r

easy as that ^_^

Grease

Is the article too random? I think not.

Grease (English: derived from the inexplicable substances in John Travolta's hair)

Grease = fatty or oily matter in general; lubricant. As you know, Travolta played in the movie Grease.

is a musical devoted to the rainbow flag and especially designet for the LGBT community of the world!

This doesn't come from nowhere. My gay friends love the musical, and some have even played roles in it.

The show's score celebrates 50's rock and roll as well as do-wop-a-doodle-doo and other contemporary doodle-doo's.

This is derived from Wikipedia: The show's score celebrates '50s rock and roll as well as doo-wop and other contemporary styles.

Particularly appreciated is the part in the musical where Roger and Jan sings about the subtle art of mooning.

From Wikipedia: The kids take their newfangled portable radios for a rock and roll picnic in the park and plan how they'll pair off at the upcoming school dance, while Roger shares his love for Jan and his favorite hobby ("Mooning").

So, will you reconsider? Chrisglie 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You may wanna talk to User:Thekillerfroggy, he's the one that deleted it. You prolly won't find much help here. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:07, Jan 22

comment on humor and level of text

Attention! this comment is not funny. please feel free to hurl volleys of invective which display your ironic and above-it-all wit.

for people who claim "being tasteless or crass is not automatically funny," you people sure do have a lot of obscene humor. why are there so many jokes about genitals? for instance the israel article says that israel is run by a lesbian who gets orders from a penis. what, i don't get it? I get it. it's funny to say genital are running countries, buiding cities, etc etc. why is that funny? it seems to make it a bit hard to add humor here, since you;'re catering to the lowest common denominator, and anyone who tries to add any topical humor, parody, genuine satire, etc, will be immediately and roundly castigated, reverted, etc, for not being funny, with it or provcative enough.

You know, humor is serious business, and can actually convey a hell of a lot of insight and content. Just look at The Onion. But for people doing an entire encyclopedia of humor, some people here seem determined to undermine the ability of others to use humor to accomplish or illuminate anything. --Sm8900 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I agree with almost everything you say. The goal of the site is to be full of wit, satire, and general comedic insanity. I assure you, the people writing random genitalia jokes about Israel are not the same people that wrote this page. However, this is the Content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so every day there are IPs adding lame crap to pages which weren't that good in the first place. If you want, you can always Rewrite a bad page, and turn it into a good page, or feel free to start your own new page. I guarantee that if your words are humorous and the page is better than what was there, it will be left alone (Excepting, of course, n00blets and anonymous IPs that may add crap, thinking they are funny, or trying to revert back to the old versions. They usually are trying to make a page funnier, but they can easily be reverted using the page's history.).

If you want to read something that's a cut above the rest, there's always the main page, or VFH (where you can vote for the ones you really like). The pages there are usually a bit funnier than the riff-raff you can find in Special:Random. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:30, Oct 26

I'd like to think we get the balance right for all tastes, though I can more than understand your opinion humour is very subjective and often things such as culture, language, intelligence levels, etc, will produce an interesting mix in comedic taste. There's plenty of humour here that I would say isn't to my taste, but I would defend its right to be here. Thankfully, for the most part, the articles that reach our VFH Featured Section are usually of a much better quality than a lot of the dross that you can find. Not every article is going to be to our own unique taste though....if you don't like something you can always move on to another article (we have loads) or try to add something to improve it. That's the beauty of the Wiki... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

ok. I don't have much more to add, but I did want to drop in to say i do appreciate your replies on this. glad we can have some discussion about this. this is turning into a significant work with much potential, and it's good to think about directions to develop. thanks. --Sm8900 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Being funny

Ive been perusing the administrators contributions. Im not finding any funny ones. That sucks. Oh well, i quit.

Bye, we'll miss you. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:39, Mar 4

I request an addenum to this.

I want to classify Rickrolling as a "stagnant joke." The internet types ruined the greatness that was Rick Astley. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it for you, but first, you have to look at this link. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:31, Mar 31

Rickrolling is a kind of joke? I guess in the same way that setting fire to someone's hair is a joke... --Tekhedd 23:20, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

A good external link.

I found a wiki-based site dedicated to the parody of Star Wars with a guide that supersedes ours in some respects, should we link to it and label it "further reading for the starwars nerds"? Here is a link [2].Wilhelm screamer 03:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that's beginning to become funny.

"Erik Estrada is an interstellar Cherzgon warrior who was aborted by his mother during the third week of pregnancy." He was then picked up by a female kangaroo who put him in her pouch and nursed him to maturity. Proxima Centauri 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Humor Tip

--Mazman343405 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Knowing a thing or two about what your making fun about is very important. At least a few details. With those details you could at least expand while your making up a joke inside your head.

Hypocrite

I find it funny that most Uncyclopedia articles completely ignore these rules. Come one. This site used to be funny but now most of it is just dumb, and disgusting. 68.50.107.144 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! What happened to you, Uncyclopedia? You used to be cool, man. - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 00:54, Jun 16

I, for one, liked Uncyclopedia before the mainstream got hold of it. Now it's ruined. Sellouts. Cryst 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly due to nobody giving a damn on reading HTBFANJS and prizing quantity over quality of edits. Not funny 02:44, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

A couple of extra things

I notice that having a Straight Man tends to work well with Escalation, when sensible texts suddenly escalates into the absurd. Also, even a non-edited picture can be funny if it has a good caption. 89.241.144.20 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian Reversal can't get old. (see under "stagnant")

I agree with alot of the OTHER things that it is said have "gotten old"...but not the Russian Reversal...and here is why...

Because the Russian Reversal might not ALWAYS be used creatively, but it can in some instances. There was one article (I can't remember what it was)...but it was something about the government, and it said "in soviet russia, YOU control the GOV..oh wait" or maybe it wasn't government but something else (that's just an example don't hate)...it was funny because it was totally WRONG about Soviet Russia...like an opposite

One I CAN remember what the article was was "sword"...where it says “In Soviet Russia, sword is mightier than pen” That one is funny for the opposite reason, because it is so TRUE Whoever wrote that, for instance, proves that you can NEVER run out of possibilities with this one...plus it's good to have traditions...you know, inside jokes, just for us special people :)

There are instances where Russian Reversals are funny, yes; there are instances when even the most corny joke can be told from a new perspective, and given a new comedic light. Unfortunately, there are many many many more instances in which they are so crushingly stupid that they make me want to rip out my own intestines and weave a blanket out of them. If you can make one funny, do it! Funny is good! Besides, this page isn't about rules, only tips and guidelines. Indeed, comedy is more often about breaking rules rather than adhering to them. But that doesn't mean the tips here aren't really really good. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:19, Oct 12

Rule changes

I read the rules, and i think they could use some tweaking. Such as bathroom jokes, gay jokes, and cursing should be allowed. I say we start a vote to alter the rules. Bunny hop 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I say you need a couple more of two edits, both on this page, before you get into altering rules. ~ 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is a great example of how to be stupid and not funny. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.Diddles (talk • contribs)

The repetition

Though my opinion is not the word of god, I wish to address the idea of ramming a joke into the ground. I am not 100% opposed to it, but it does need to go into moderation, especially when you use the internet to run jokes into the ground, people call it a fad. Fads are something I rarely find to be funny. They can be good as a good Chuck Norris joke can make me laugh, but fads are annoying and the repetition should be considered something like a microfad. So doing so should rarely be done if at all. And if one does do it, make it used less in the paragraph. Did I mention that the repetition should be considered something like a microfad? -newvamp

You're opinion you're entitled to it. But I should say that HTBFANJS is just guidlines, not set rules. As in "these techniques tend to work well". I'm pretty sure it says as much. Have fun!    Orian57    Talk   07:53 19 June 2009

Repetition? Does that mean "Shave and a Haircut" can no longer amuse? It seemed to work in "Roger Rabbit" or am I being 'stupid'?

Better examples?

Maybe we could quote better examples instead of writing "This isn't the best example/most hilarious" 30 times on this page? --MaxPayne 15:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it only says that once on the page. If that one time bothers you enough, {{sofixit}}. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:36, Aug 8

8 Avoid Stagnant Jokes sub: Anything to do with Snakes on a Plane.

I'm sorry, but "Buffalos on a Plane" IS funny... "Jurassic Park on a Plane" isn't. "Chuck Norris on a Plane" maybe. Must we put limits on our creative expound-ibilty-tion-ness and stuff?

And speaking of Akira Kurosawa (and my editing of that article) what wasn't funny about adding the directors: [Burt I. Gordon], [Cash Flagg nee Ray Dennis Steckler]? Gordon, of the radioactive monster genre (see: Inshiro Honda who was an assistant director to Kurosawa), released his "King Dinosaur" in 1955, one year after Honda's release of "Godzilla." Not coincidence (see: interviews with Mr. BIG). Cash Flagg one the other hand (the man who gave us: The Incredible Creatures...", "Rat Pfink a Boo Boo", "Sex Rink" and [too] many more) was a fan of the B-minus, Honda-ish, horror [some say horrible] films that predated his early 1960's entry into the world of truly bad films. The reason he is never named as one of the worst directors of all time is simply that his films were viewed once (as the co-hit to some other B film) and prompted shelved. The Kurosawa-Honda link carried far into the future.

"... and [Kurosawa] was influenced from things ranging from American detective fiction, French nudist magazines, and the works of Dostoyevsky." The 'great one' was known to read "naughty" mags that, at the time, could only be purchased from France (Japan still has some of the most stringent pornography laws--see the film "The Pornographers"). Isn't this "information?"

Lastly:
on http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/AIDS_(Space_Program) I inserted this: "In 2007, under the Bush administration, a massive program was undertaken by NASA to assist the AIDS administrators, despite suggestions from critics that "[NASA] might was well send them [AIDS] the blueprints for one of Wily E. Coyote's inventions and a gift certificate to Acme Inc. Given the illustration [An advanced Blue Print of an AIDS Space Shuttle] I thought this was quite apropos... You did not. Did I miss the joke? It was exactly like the plans so often created by Coyote [Voracious incredulous]. Maybe it wasn't 'high brow' enough. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.146.128 (talk • contribs)

Sir: If the above was reverted by an experienced Uncyclopedian, I am sure they found it unfunny rather than out of technical compliance with HTBFANJS. The entire item about Snakes-on-a-Plane is subordinate to the clause, "except if you have an obvious good reason or a very clever writing style." That, plus the "ignorable policy" claim at the start of HTBFANJS, plus especially the insistence of every Admin I have met that we are here to have fun and write humor, not to spend our time holding each other to rulebooks (nor even spending inordinate time expanding them).

The point of Snakes-on-a-Plane in this list is not that there is no way to make it funny, but that newbies shouldn't try because the result will be crap.

It's also possible that you were reverted by someone with different tastes who has no knowledge of HTBFANJS at all. Although we try to tape a copy to everyone's forehead when they walk in the door. Spıke ¬  13:06 9-Feb-10

PS--Other possibilities: You were reverted by (1) a foreigner who didn't grow up watching Road Runner cartoons, (2) someone who is possessive about his article, or (3) someone who is suspicious about unsigned anonymous contributions, many of which don't provide a summary of their change. (I too give these edits "strict scrutiny"). Don't take it out on the rulebook. Spıke ¬  13:12 9-Feb-10

Uncylopedia

This article is ironic, as uncyclopedia in its entirety is stupid and not funny.

Um, no shit. —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 09:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tips on Writing Humourously that Fail.

I found it somewhat ironic that in the section on Basic Techniques, it warned that repetition can make the joke dead, and then went on to repeat the repetition technique just too many times, making the joke dead. And the irony didn't make it funny. Just downright painful to read.

Also: "if you are walking down the street, and bump into the President of the United States and he apologizes to you profusely, gets flustered, then asks you for your autograph, that's funny." It would be funny as in weird perhaps, but funny ha-ha? No.

Yet more:

• Example: Creationism is the idea that God was so bored out of his mind he spent 6 days creating everything on our planet, and for good measure put in several jokes to fool us into believing it must have taken him much longer.

Funny! Why? It's not a throwaway, plus it gives us a reason to laugh. That crazy God.

I honestly do not see how that is meant to be funny. Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough for the humour, but I really do not see what the heck it is trying to refer to. Is it referring to evolution as one of God's jokes? If it is, that doesn't make sense. Fossils perhaps? I really do not know, but all I know is that I don't find it funny at all.

I really think it's stupid when an article that is meant to guide you on being funny has examples of supposedly "funny" stuff that really is not funny.– Preceding unsigned comment added by 9wubbza (talk • contribs)

Okay, these are guidelines to being funny, not necessarily rules. As in, the examples are simply there to give you an idea of what to write. Obviously, the examples are not gonna be ha-ha-hilarious, given that they are pretty much made up and inserted. If you want better examples, just read our features, most of which follow HTBFANJS. --Paizu • Maj. • JStw • MUN • LOB • Crap • WHORE • (Talk) 15:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Repitition(with horrible spelling/grammar)

In stead of having "did i mention repitition" since the joke had already died you could just put REPITItion again, but intstaeed of the normal "this is...." just put repition: See what I mean?– Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.101.86 (talk • contribs) on 12:40, December 27, 2010

Uhhhhhhh, whatever.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 20:36, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Mr. IP, I am unsure of what you are trying to imply, maybe you could elaborate and try to speak in clearer sentences. → I am greatSoup? 20:51 29-Dec-10 ←

Helpful Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that all articles are marked with big letters saying: "Jimmy Wales is a dirty bastard, a fraud, who should be jailed for life" (Notregisteredyet)

Uh, no. Do you know how many articles that we have to change the titles to? We're not miracle workers. And do you know how confusing that would be? People would go crazy trying to find an article. Nice try, though.--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 23:54, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

They could do it on Wikipedia because they have things called bots to do things like that. They can always do anything to over-write, or silence, anyone putting up edits they don't like. That's why I don't like it and don't rate it. And ONE of the reasons I hate Wales is he goes around the world giving false interviews pretending he's a nice guy and that Wikipedia is all nice and high-minded etc. (Notregisteredyet)

I wouldn't think Wikipedia would do that now; they're too serious. As for Wales, it's not really funny just to outright bash someone just because you don't like him. The place to do that woulde be Hatepedia (which probaly doesn't exist).--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 01:09, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but surely that comment belongs on the Wikipedia. (Notregisteredyet)

Being Self-referential.

Someone should add a

<p name="Being_Self-referential"></p>

around this pointer, and link the example back into the it, 58.160.154.162 06:48, March 20, 2011 (UTC) (formerly user:219.90.192.95)

Brasil

In Desciclopédia this article is: How To Be Funny And Not Just Idiot

In portuguese: Como ser engraçado e não apenas idiota

Thank Ye

Herein lies quite a good and decent guide for the proliferation of goodly humour, whether in this Unencyclopaedia or in the general literature. Of interest! Sorry, in an Olde Moode Today. --151.138.254.21 21:01, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

/* The "@#$%^&*" Rule: Being Crass or Tasteless Doesn't Automatically Make Everything Funny */

{{Editprotected}} - == The "@#$%^&*" Rule: Being Crass or Tasteless Doesn't Automatically Make Everything Funny ==
+ == Being Cra** or +@$+€£€$$ Doesn't Automatically Make Everything Funny

+ Explicit humor and gay jokes is not what Uncyclopedia was meant for and what Incyclopedia (why not?) is meant for. --218.186.15.10 11:34, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Now use {{Shortcuts}}

{{Editprotected}} I recently created {{Shortcuts}}, so why not replace {{Shortcut|[[UN:DUMB]] [[UN:HTBFANJS]]}} with {{Shortcuts|UN:DUMB|UN:HTBFANJS}}?

--218.186.15.10 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

editThe "@#$%^&*" Rule: Being Crass or Tasteless Doesn't Automatically Make Everything Funny

Go ahead and censor us! Alex Devens 22:27, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

When making up quotes...

As this article demonstrates, made-up quotes, depending on the circumstance, should be attributed to either Albert Einstein, Oscar Wilde, or me. -- Who can argue with them?

"He who trains his tongue to quote the learned sages, will be known far and wide as a smart ass." ~Howard Kandel

"A good quote is like a good cigar -- don't inhale." ~Albert Wilde

"I know what I'm talking about; so just shut up!" ~me 184.76.225.106 21:05, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Repitition?

There's two repitions that say the same thing. One of them needs to be removed. --96.242.163.228 10:23, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Repitition?

There's two repitions that say the same thing. One of them needs to be removed. --101.116.60.52 11:04, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

But i'm too stupid to remember this all. Chaoarren Chaohead (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible addition to “The §* Rule” section

Firstly yes I can’t be bothered to retype the exact symbols in order even though it would take an extra 20 seconds. But the addition is this:

Do not make overly offensive remarks. While it may be funny to some people, throwing something that directly targets and attacks a specific group (i.e. discriminatory jokes) into an article makes it generally anywhere from a bit worse to way worse to read, depending on if you are being referred to or not.

I feel like this should be self-explanatory but thanks to my experiences with other people especially outside uncyc I feel like this should be a thing. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

That might not work. Some people have disagreements about what is too offensive. Microsoft for POTUS (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Category suggestion

Possibly add Category:Long articles that ramble on about nothing? I can't, it's admin-protected. ݬલטαฬ םɐۼ - ᚦ¡ទᑕʋᛢᛇ - ɪ øటñ ᑌᑎᑦᛉ๔1០ᖀξᗟᛧą - but ɳ̩ɵɞ_°₫￥ ເἀᚱΞᛇ 21:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)