Talk:Humour

Humor or Humour?
Yes, i know humour is the british way of spelling it, but since most of Wikipedia users come from the United States, should it not be spelled Humor?

Also, this is a SUGGESTION. Please contribute and don't hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TsarNicholasTheSecond (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:ENGVAR. Some articles here use British English and some use American English, and the general rule is not to change them unless the topic is closely associated with one culture.  Hut 8.5  19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * When so much of the discourse in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humour/Archive_1 was concerning this matter, I find its immediate return as topic number one when Wikipedia is presented with this fresh, clean canvas both amousing and hilarios One cookie (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this should be at American English, as it was started there, see WP:ENGVAR. An overzealous British editor moved the article without rationale, and it's been contentious ever since. 2A02:C7D:CA94:FB00:5887:6925:D47D:34A0 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Just to note, it's July 16 2020, and this article is still in violation of ENGVAR for changing the spellings from American to british english. It should be change back. 2A02:C7F:C632:9200:ACBA:ABE6:660A:5EA1 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to be clear here, at the point when title was changed in 2002, the rule against changing the variant of English didn't exist and wouldn't exist in concrete, definitive form for years to come. ArbCom only came up with its first injunction not to change the EngVar "unless there is some substantial reason for the change" in 2005 (and who knows, maybe the 2002 editor thought they had a "substantial reason"?). Saying that the 2002 title changed violated any guideline or policy is completely wrong since there were no such guidelines or policies at that point. The rule exists now, though, so we should not change without a good reason. FOARP (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean the principle shouldn't stand: it was moved for no reason, and it should be moved back. Eccekevin (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Policies don't apply retrospectively. WaggersTALK  08:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's déjà vu all over again. As I predicted in the 2016 RM five years ago, this title will remain controversial until it's moved back to the original spelling variety. Whether the move in question was a rule violation back when it was moved from the original variety in 2002 is moot. WP:RETAIN is simply an objective approach to resolving conflicts: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.. That's the rule that's relevant here, and it applies in this situation. Note that those two requirements are separated by an and, meaning both must be satisfied, not just one or the other. We can argue about whether a variety of English has been established here, but there can be no argument about whether discussion has resolved the issue. The section clearly demonstrates it has not. I said it in 2016 and I'll say it again:  Yogurt, by the way, has remained stable with no controversy whatsoever since the 2011 RM close — almost ten years now! See: Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory.  --В²C ☎ 21:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been at this spelling since 2002. I think everyone should just WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. Meters (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. No sticks here that I can see. When all else fails, go with WP:Status quo stonewalling. Sigh. —22:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC) --В²C ☎ 22:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "this title will remain controversial until it's moved back to the original spelling variety", this is an assumption based on the idea that BR-Eng people will be more reasonable than NA-Eng people have proved in endless raising of this issue for now nearly 20 years. The justification for not changing it is an entirely reasonable one - the title is established in the article by nearly two decades of usage, RETAIN did not anyway apply to the original move because RETAIN didn't even exist as a policy then. FOARP (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you missed my refutations of both of these points above? Because you're making these claims as if they weren't even addressed, much less refuted. Or maybe I wasn't clear?
 * If the prediction about this issue not being resolved until the NA-Eng title is restored was based on the idea that BR-Eng people will be more reasonable, then it would predict similar unresolved conflicts at articles like Aluminium. But it doesn't. Because the prediction is not based on any idea about how reasonable any side is. It is based on the idea that such conflicts are resolved by restoring the original variety used at a given article. That's why Aluminium, Yogurt, and countless other variety-specific titles are stable; it has to do with following RETAIN guidance, not which side is reasonable.
 * In addition to establishing a rule against changing the variety of English of an article and the consequence of reverting when this rule is violated, which we agree is not applicable here because the rule was apparently not yet established when the move in question here occurred, RETAIN establishes an objective mechanism for resolving conflicts about variety of English that is to be applied—regardless of whether there ever was any violation of any rule—any time a conflict about English variety cannot be resolved by discussion. And that's the situation we have here.
 * —В²C ☎ 10:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A review of this talk page (now on it's 4th archive) does not support the idea that Aluminium has not been subject of endless conflict, even with the added weight of a standard in its favour (probably, without the standard, it would have been changed to the American spelling ages ago given the palpable anger of so many of the NA-lang editors there). You are not refuting the basic case that you are trying to apply a rule to a title-change that did not even exist when the title-change occurred, that we have not tended to apply rules retrospectively without accounting for the impact this will have, and that the name has been stable now for nearly two decades. Re-opening naming disputes after changes from so long ago will clearly have a negative impact.
 * And all this is without engaging at all with the last RM discussion which was not a no-consensus close, but an actual consensus not to move ("Consensus to not move/Not moved should be used when a consensus has formed to not rename the article(s) in question...this notifies other editors that they should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change. There is a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is."), which was subsequently endorsed in a move-review. This is about as final as it will ever get regardless of which Eng-var this article is at. Discussion happened. The Eng-var was established. Whatever the case of the 2002 move, the present title has been endorsed by a consensus already. Drop the stick. FOARP (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , my apologies. Aluminium is not a good example. But Liquorice appears to be. My point stands. Regardless of what the rules were at the time the article was originally moved, what settles these discussions most reliably is going back to the original variety of English. —В²C ☎ 18:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When the variety was changed it seems to have still been a stub since it didn't contain any sources etc and probably wouldn't at least today have conformed with formatting standards etc so I'd suggest it was still a stub version for the purpose of RETAIN.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it had had half a dozen unique editors by that edit, plus a bot, and enough content to no longer be a stub. The variety of English in the article had clearly been established and the sole purpose of the edit you linked was to change that variety. That's why there will be contoversy on this article until the original variety is restored. —В²C ☎ 04:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * just to check in on this debate. As British English users have been known to say there is no controversy on this subject. It's July 17th 2021,and this article is still misnamed against policy, and should be reverted to Humor.

2A02:C7F:F042:B400:CCA4:4BA6:DD36:2485 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * And, additionally to check in, it's 16 August 2021 and there's no actual controversy here. A consensus in favour of the title was formed at the previous RM discussion in 2016 and the name is established per WP:RETAIN. Drop the stick. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is still misnammed as per ENGVAR and retain. Why should people not fight for what is correct by this sites own standards? 2A02:C7C:5AEF:1100:89C:435E:CB16:95EF (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the current name is already established per WP:RETAIN. There already is a consensus in favour of this name . This was decided in a well-attended RM discussion in 2016 that decided against moving, confirmed by a MRV which decided that the page was at the right place and here is where it should stay - the MRV literally called it "a slam dunk close" because after 14 years it was clearly a stable title. Even if you don't believe it was established before that by the decade-plus-long usage and expansion of the page (and it was), it was surely determined then. If anything, the following seven+ years have only made it more convincing.
 * There is simply no point in trying to re-litigate this again and again and again. The "but if you decide this my way then the controversy disappears" argument basically relies on BrEng speakers being more reasonable that the small number of AmEng speakers who occasionally (like once a year or less?) pop up on this page to complain that the name is not their preferred version.
 * The name change was more than 20 years ago ! Drop the stick.
 * PS - I also endorse what Prinsgezinde said above (back in 2017....), especially this part: "I'm half thinking this is just the same IP every time."FOARP (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Facetious" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Facetious and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023
I would like to edit the beginning of this article. I have a proposed edit that I think is more scientific and objective. Jaypopism (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌, you would need to tell us what that proposed edit was, before we could make it. Belbury (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure! I want to rewrite the first two paragraphs with the following text. The changes aren't massive or sweeping, though, just a bit of fine-tuning. I embedded the sources for ease of reading.
 * Humor is a cognitive process, characterized by the emotion it creates (mirth) and the physical reactions it causes; for example, smiling and laughter (Attardo, 2023). The concept of humor exists in every society (Beeman, 1999) though researchers remain unsure as to exactly why something is considered humorous (Sabato, 2019). The term, humor, derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, known as humours (Latin: humor, "body fluid"), controlled human health and emotion.
 * Despite long-held beliefs that certain people, especially those considered neurodivergent, lack the ability to understand or appreciate it, people of all backgrounds, ages, and cultures respond to humour. Though ultimately decided by subjective personal taste, the extent to which a person finds something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context. For example, young children may appreciate the slapstick humor found in Punch and Judy puppet shows or cartoons such as Tom and Jerry or Looney Toons, as the physical nature makes it accessible to them. By contrast, the more complex nuances of the character’s interactions require a deeper understanding of social meaning and context, and thus may amuse a more mature audience.
 * Sources:
 * Attardo, S. (2023). Humor 2.0: How the Internet Changed Humor. Anthem Press.
 * Beeman, W. (1999). Humor. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1/2), 103–106.
 * Sabato, G. (2019, June 26). What’s So Funny? The Science of Why We Laugh. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-so-funnythe-science-of-why-we-laugh/ Jaypopism (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Beeman, W. (1999). Humor. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1/2), 103–106.
 * Sabato, G. (2019, June 26). What’s So Funny? The Science of Why We Laugh. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-so-funnythe-science-of-why-we-laugh/ Jaypopism (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sabato, G. (2019, June 26). What’s So Funny? The Science of Why We Laugh. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-so-funnythe-science-of-why-we-laugh/ Jaypopism (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sabato, G. (2019, June 26). What’s So Funny? The Science of Why We Laugh. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-so-funnythe-science-of-why-we-laugh/ Jaypopism (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)