Talk:Off-color humor

add examples

this article needs examples, they would help inforce this concept

merge

The following pages should be merged:

• Off-color humor
• Toilet humour
• Dick joke
• Dickfor

Please discuss if you have objections, rather than just reverting. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 07:14Z

Firstly I've never heard of "off-color humor". "color" and "humor" are American spellings and I've never heard of "off-colour humour" either. It is a completely meaningless phrase to me. Wikipedia policy is that where an article originated at a British or American spelling it should not be moved. On Google a search for "off colour humour" -wikipedia' generates a mere 392 hits. It is clearly not a well known phrase to anyone outside of the United States. On google both '"toilet humour" -wikipedia' and '"toilet humor" -wikipedia' generate considerably more hits than '"off color humor" - wikipedia', and funnily enough "toilet humour" has marginally more hits. Consequently under the Wikipedia policy of using common English "Toilet humour" wins out. But I think that there is difference in the meaning of the terms to have two or more articles. I certainly see no reason for a merger. Although they both generally concern bodily functions I think that toilet humour and "blue humour" are clearly about two different subjects. Generally the first concerns jokes about bodiliy waste and the second is generally about sex, it's not advisable to confuse the two. Jooler 07:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is not an Am-E vs Br spelling dispute. I had not known the term "off-color humor" before reading the article either, and I don't care which spelling is used. (You can see in Toilet humour history that I accidentally typed "Off-color humour" :) If blue humo(u)r is a more common name for it, fine, rename it (note: 8 million Google hits for off color humor). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 08:03Z

8 million hits?! - yes for the three unconnected words 'off' 'color' and 'humor' - (note 'american' 'black' and 'humor' gets 19 million). The phrase "off color humor" gets a mere 24,000 hits. "toliet humor" and toilet humour" together add up to over 300,000. Jooler 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. "Blue humour" is fine. Do you have any objections to merging? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-11 01:35Z

If we're going to talk about renaming articles, I feel I must point out that 'dirty joke' ends up with way more results than any of the aforementioned.--GlitchBob dbug 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blue humour is defined as dealing with topics that are considered to be in poor taste or overly vulgar ... topics generally considered impolite or indecent. So toilet humour may be relevant as a subsection of this, just as sexual humour would be. The main argument that I can see against merging is that while jokes about bodily waste are in poor taste, they are not overly vulgar compared to dead baby jokes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 08:03Z

Secondly regarding the use of "rvv" - the merger was performed by User:64.194.44.220 see User talk:64.194.44.220, a known vandal/sock puppet of User:Robin Williams with a history of controversial page moves - see User talk:Robin Williams. Jooler 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I had assumed 64.194.44.220's edit was good faith because he was doing something I had suggested, but I see his talk page now and accept your use of "rvv". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 07:47Z

---

I think toilet humour should remain seperate. Toilet humour is distinctly different from sexual humour. Toilet humour is about the toilet and sexual humour is about sex. Generally I think sexual humour is more acceptable and is more pervasive. We crack sex jokes everyday with regards to relationships in our lives and the lives of those we know. But a lot more skill is needed in dishing out toilet humour without embarassment or offence.

- I've never heard "toilet humor" or "off-color humor" be used. I've heard of "working blue"

But everyone's heard of a dick joke.

There might be some overarching category that dick jokes belong in, but surely it can't be a category that's described by a rarely used phrase?

If anything, it belongs in a subcategory of comedian craftmanship. It's just another tool, like a carpenter might use a hammer or nail.

"toilet" or "off-color" seem too subjective in flavor.

"blue humor" maybe? I'm not sure what would be best.

ask any comic

blue humor is clearly a thing. the term is kinda dated but it's clearly one scale on which one can rate comedic performance, style or content. how blue is it? it would not be crazy to invent other "scales" on which to measure or describe humorous content. is it... racial, political, mainstream, self-deprecating, geography-oriented, esoteric- u get the idea. how much so?

I don't know what "off color humor" is. there's an encyclopedia entry for off color humor? that's gay. Ka-zizzlMc 05:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ka-zizzlMc, off-color humor is a hopeless generalization that few have heard of. Bathroom humor likely does not include jokes about rubber duckies, shower curtains, or bath tubs, so it's confusing.

I propose a split into "toilet humor", which makes it clear that it's about genitalia, excrement, urine, etc. and "rude jokes" or "offensive humor" whose point is to be politically incorrect without stooping to "pee and poo". HenrikErlandsson (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

i don't get it

...I don't get it, why does humor have a color? I've heard of the phrase tickle me pink and thought it was kinda weird. I've never once laughed to the point where I've turned or felt pink, and I don't want to. I've never felt "blue" I've never felt "green with envy"... All of these colors should not be used with emotions, or humor... NEITHER have color

I think the term 'blue humour' comes from the lighting used in the comedy clubs/bars in which comedians who told dirty jokes performed. Colours and emotions go together perfectly. Black humour (a bit dark, associated with death?)... and what about Blues music?! Maybe 'tickled pink' is because people's faces turn red if they laugh a lot? (just a guess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.73.219 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

back to the matter at hand

I think dickfor is hilarious, I'm kind of suprized at the things that get put in here, but if phrases like "off color humor" can go in, then dickfor should be automatically allowed as it's own entry. I don't think you should merge those because they're all unique. That'd be like merging George Washington, Bill Gates, important americans, and money and campaign together. Just because they have some similarities, doesn't mean you should just throw them together. They're all unique, and they all deserve there own page.

Um... Whats a dickfor?69.225.0.34 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

- "Topeewith". A night-active forest bird in Spies Like Us. HenrikErlandsson (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ask Any Comic Redux

Hi. I'm Tim Mitchell. A comic who is somewhat familiar with the concept of the "dick joke."

First off, the stub is wrong, in that a "dick joke" doesn't have to refer to the penis. I know that sounds odd, but Ask Any Comic.

However, "dick joke" is suis generis as a term. It is comic lingo for a single bit or gag, not something that could describe an entire act or form of comedy. (As "blue" and "off-color" could.)

When one types in the word "Facetiousness," he should not be re-directed to "Off-Color Humor"

May I inquire as to why there is no separate entry for either "Facetious" or Facetiousness? When one types in the word "Facetious," he gets re-directed to "Humor", and when one types in the word "Facetiousness, strangely enough, he gets re-directed to "Off-Color Humor"!!! Why is this? "Facetiousness" doesn't generally doesn't fit into the category of "off-color humor". Not usually, that is. And "Humor" is too broad a subject in which to include a specific entity as "facetiousness"

Another thing. Why should "Facetious" and "Facetiousness" be re-directed to two separate pages?

At any rate, I believe that there should be a "Facetiousness" page to begin with. It's a specific subject all of its own.

And believe me, when I say this, I'm not being at all facetious.Runt (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, isn't it kind of stupid that "facetious" re-directs to "Humor", and "facetiousness" is re-directed to "Off-Color Humor" when, in neither article, there is not so much as even a mention of the word "facetious" or "facetiousness".

It's stuff like this that illustrates why intelligent people don't take Wikipedia seriously. - Runt (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim about Dick Jokes

Incidentally, I agree with Tim. A "dick joke" doesn't have to be about an actual penis, meaning the male sexual organ. A "dick" also means a "detective". So a "dick joke" can also mean a "detective joke". Just like the W.C. Fields' movie, The Bank Dick. The movie refers to a bank guard, or if you prefer, a bank detective, not a "bank penis". Yes, there are a lot of people who work in banks who can easily be referred to as "bank dicks" who aren't bank guards or bank detectives, but these are the banks' CEOs and bank presidents, such as the corporate criminals at Citibank, who the government has bailed out, just to have them use the billions of those dollars for "naming rights" on stadiums, such as the New York Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. Yes, the Citbank corporate criminals are definitely bank dicks. - Runt (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

The only external reference goes to a page which only links to strangerthanfiction and doesn't give any more information on the subject. I think it should be erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.85.109 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Nonveg joke" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nonveg joke and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#Nonveg joke until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Non-veg joke" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Non-veg joke and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#Non-veg joke until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)