Talk:Running gag/Archive 1

Archive 1

redirect to 'category: running gags

do it already

i would but i dont know how and i dont want to jack it all up.FOUR TILDES 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality

This page is quite long, and most of the information is irrelevant. We should move most of the running gags to List of running gags and only keep a few of the less obscure ones from television and movies. --DJH47 03:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have since cleaned up a bit of this article myself. The "unplanned running gags" section was removed since it only referred to cliches. The list was cut down to only items that have acquired notability. Please justify any revisions to the list on this talk page. --DJH47 05:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• This page has become filled with garbage again. I'll clean it up soon. MrVacBob 14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

slight grammar issue

One of the Items listed is:

In the television series Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the Scooby Gang and Spike frequently fall into the ground, areas vacated by newly risen Vampires.

I think this sentence is missing a word (or maybe a comma?). I'm not failiar with Buffy, bat as the setence reads now, it seems that "the ground" refers to any area "vacated by newly risen vampires." (AFAIK, "vampires" does not need capitalization, but then again, I know very litle about Buffy...) Should it be:

In the television series Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the Scooby Gang and Spike frequently fall into the ground near areas vacated by newly risen vampires.

? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Buffy and I don't know what the heck this means. All I can guess is they mean people fall into open graves, but wasn't really a running gag. I'm removing it. If someone can rewrite it so it makes sense, please put it in. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

A Star Wars running gag could be that C-3PO never was able to end his phrase explaining that he was capable of speaking in 6 million languages, since always was interrupted by someone else. --Manuel Cuevas 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Too long

I cleaned up the list of gags and took out some obscure ones and some that aren't jokes, but it needs more work. It's too long, in my opinion --AW 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

• Whatever happened to that image of that "running" gag? 66.109.201.50 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the list be removed completely?

The list of running gags which makes up the bulk of this article was removed. I think consensus should be reached first on this as it removes most of the article. What are the thoughts? I don't see a problem with it staying, personally. Addyboy 13:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The list can and will get extrordinarily long, as it has in the past, encompassing scores of obscure television shows and other things not contributing to an encyclopedic article on running gags. Nearly all of it will be unreferenced and badly spelled. Since determining what constitutes a relevant running gag is nearly impossible, it is probably better just not to have a list. --DJH47 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As it has now been brought back again (not by me) we clearly do need to reach a consensus on whether or not it should stay. Can we agree it stays until we do so to avoid a revert war?Addyboy 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No. All content must be attributable. I see no reason to keep it on without verification and relevance to the concept of a "running gag". --DJH47 15:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yours is just one view - I'm neutral on this, but still think a consensus should be reached first. That's why I'm keeping it in until we get the views of multiple people - Not. Just. You.Addyboy 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should not have such a list. Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information" - and such a list clearly is one. A proper, encyclopædic list of anything should be complete: and naturally, there is no way on Earth we could have a complete list of all running gags known to mankind. Even if we cut it down to just a few of the more famous examples, the mere presence of the list is an open invitation for editors (mainly good-faith newbies) to add their own particular favourite running-gag references... and thus the list would grow again. EuroSong ^talk 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I just renamed the list.. take a look. It now has a more accurate title. Shall I remove it, or will you? :) EuroSong ^talk 23:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the validation. I will go ahead and remove it now. --DJH47 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since someone saw fit to remove the bulk of the article, I've moved most of that deleted content to a new article covering just the list of running gags and linked it to this article. If we can have lists of television series' episodes, lists of characters in movies, and so on, we can also have a list of commonly-used running gags. There is a reason Wikipedia has the "this list may require cleanup" tag - because lists are allowed. Furthermore, this article is a stub and should be expanded, per the tag included therein. A history of the running gag might be appropriate. Vanessaezekowitz 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same. A list of episodes from a television series is definitive - for example, if you want to make a list of Frasier episodes then there is a finite number of them - no more, no less - and it can also be verified by external sources. However, there is no definitive list of common running gags. Also bear in mind that this is just the English language version of an international encyclopædia: there may be some very commonly recognised running gags in popular media around the world, which contributors here are not aware of. It is therefore practically impossible to create an article, or section, which accurately reflects running gags in the sphere of human knowledge. Additionally, please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. EuroSong ^talk 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the above "indiscriminate" policy page, it appears to me that this list does not fall under any of the categories there, but just to be safe, I've added a few rules to the discussion section of the page, to try to define what does and does not belong. Similarly, none of the categories on What Wikipedia is not appears to apply either (in fact, this article we're talking in now clearly qualifies as a mere dictionary entry and is in violation of that policy). Furthermore, at least some of the 'votes' listed in the article's original deletion discussion directly violate Wikipedia's Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions rules regarding reasons why an article should be kept or deleted. While a list of running gags as a standalone entity might not be authoritative in its own right, there are certainly hundreds of examples in media around the world that would qualify for this type of list (not considering the rules set forth on the list's discussion page). For example, The Simpsons features overtly placed couch and chalkboard gags, arguably funny both on an individual basis and collectively as running gags. In reference lists of television series' episodes: what if there is no end yet planned in a TV series? Should we then refrain from listing those episodes that have played and/or are planned? On the point of this being just the English edition: while it may be uncommon for foreign media to become popular in the United States, and probably other English-speaking countries, the reverse is a common occurrence. Therefore, there must be at least a few running gags that are "independent" of language and country, like the aforementioned couch and chalkboard gags. With all of this in mind, I firmly OBJECT to the article being deleted. If someone doesn't think an entry belongs in the list, then delete the entry rather than putting the whole list up for deletion. Vanessaezekowitz 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the list's been deleted by the admins now anyway. With regards to point about "at least a few running gags that are independent of language and country", that might be true in some few isolated cases - like your Simpsons example, as the program is popular and known all over the world. I don't have a problem with recognising that fact per se: but the problem is the list itself, and its purpose. It was simply titled "List of running gags". What you are talking about is "A few hand-picked examples of running gags which are popularly recognised in most countries in the world". And this would definitely not be encyclopædic - for a start, while individual references may be available to verify individual entries in such a list, there is no independent reference available for the very definition of what should be included and what should not. Please see WP:LIST, where it clearly states: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources." There exists no reputable source which defines what should be included in an open-ended "List of running gags", quite simply. Regarding your point about lists of episodes from a TV series which has not yet finished: while it's true that, if a series is ongoing, the Wikipedia list of its episodes will be incomplete, there will at least be some point in the future at which the list will be complete. In other words, the article is a work-in-progress, and it is possible some day to complete it. However, with such an open-ended list of running gags, there is no beginning and no end. I agree with one point you mention, however: this page itself, "Running gag" as an article, is little more than a dictionary definition, and its usefulness as an encyclopædia article should be questioned. EuroSong ^talk 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary

The contents of the running gag page are an exact copy of the following link.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Running%20gag

That site is based (almost?) entirely on Wikipedia content. If you'd scrolled to the bottom of the page you'd have read "This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License." -- Jim Regan 00:04, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

---

List

can the list go on if it includes just 3 references? i mean, it really really improves the article. without it the article is pretty much nothing. I mean, i see how the list can get out of hand, but no list at all?? c'mon - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We've here been through this before. If one user adds one example, another user will add another, and before long it would snowball and we'd end up with the unmanageable situation we used to have. Even if we decided to have a small list (which wouldn't work, per my previous sentence) who is to decide what running gags are worthy of confusion? It would be a very POV list! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Consensus was to remove the list. all i'm asking for is 1 single example, to help the article. Consesus, Schmonsesus. WP:BOLD & WP:IGNORE should really apply here. If poeple add more examples, i'll remove them personally. This article REALLY REALLY needs an example because it is so short and has insufficent context. The whole point of an example is to have people who are familiar with the example help explain what a running gag is. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 13:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay... So who picks the gag? Will it come from an American show? A British one? How does one decide which gag is worth presenting as a good example? Once the "example" is there, what reason can one give to the next editor who wants to add another, saying that theirs is a better example? These are all issues that have come up before, so please don't start a list (because even one example is going to be treated as the start of a list). -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not starting a list. I'm just putting up one single example. I chose the south park one because it's notable and easy to understand and explain, and suits the article well. No more examples to be added. I think your making a big deal of a little thing. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two different editors have asked you not to put examples on the article. Please abide by the consensus. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC).

How about we have a vote then to determine which running gag should be in. Because this article desperately needs an example, the example help adding context to the article. (I'm actually surprised that the article on something as notable as a running gag is so short...)

(the list we used to have can be found here)

Some of the running gags are very popular, for example, the Couch gag on the Simpsons is possible the most well known Running Gag of all time. i still think that the list could be added if contained to only very notable running gags (notability by consensus of people here). Who really cares about WP:List. It's not a rule set in stone, the person who violates it won't be sent off to some jail.

I think a list of Notable Running gags would be great. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that we use consensus, not voting? At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that we had a list before, it got out of hand, it got removed by consensus of the editors that contributed to the page. having said that, consensus can change, so I'll start a discussion. Let's give the discussion a week to run then, if consensus is reached that we need a list, we can work out how to go about creating one. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus

Should we have a list of running gags on this article?

• Reject - we had a list before and it got out of hand, as there are no clearly-defined criteria for inclusion, and most of the items on the list were unsourced. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Accept yes there was a list before, and yes it got slightly out of hand, but basically what you are saying is that having a list there would be a snowball's chance in hell of it being controlled. The list can be maintained if we reach consensus as to what to include in it. It's not like if somebody adds something to the list that isn't notable we can't just remove it. I know if it happened, i would not let the article get out of hand, because I (along with every other wikipedian!) have this beautiful tool called a 'Watchlist'. And by the way, I set the current list here for reference. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And Remember, Voting is Not Evil - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see... WP:VINE is okay, but WP:LIST isn't??? ;-) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And just because they were unsourced doesn't mean they didn't exist. Plus, the majority of them I could find references for easily. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Accept - There is no legitimate reason why we can't include at least a handful of known-around-the-world references, like the Simpson's Couch Gag. Removing interesting information from an article, however inconsequential in the real world, is still removing information. This is Wikipedia, not a paper encyclopedia - On the Internet, we don't need to worry about creating a 10,000 page tome. It's not as though we're talking about adding this kind of data to every single page on the site, so I doubt there are any related, legitimate concerns about bandwidth. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I need to point out that WP:LIST states: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources."

There is no such independent definition of what should be included in a "list of running gags". The only such list we could make is: "List of a few hand-picked examples of running gags which have been thought of by English-speaking Wikipedia editors - most of whom are from the UK or USA, and consequently whose gag examples will come exclusively from the popular culture of those countries". Therefore it's plainly a no-brainer: such a list does not belong in a serious encyclopædia.

As for citing a couple of examples in a paragraph — as opposed to a list format — this is no better. The mere presence of such examples will invite other editors to add their own favourite examples - and bingo, we're back where we started. EuroSong ^talk 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still contest to you people thinking that a small list would be completely unmanagable. What makes you think that if there was a list it couldn't be contained. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

it's not like the page would say "Hey Wikipedians! Please add a ton of unreferenced, un-notable running gags to this list!" If the article had 2 or 3, it doesn't matter if it's a world view or not, it's just an example, also, using<!-- -->those things we could put in the article not to add any more examples. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole basis that people are stating for not having examples is the page would be too 'un-managable'. Again. That button that says 'Watch', click it. Now, click on the button that says 'my watchlist' if someone adds another example, that would show up on the watchlist, then an editor could go back to the article and remove the example. I'm saying we get 2 or 3 examples and keep it like that. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And WP:LIST Wouldn't apply if it was just 1 or 2 examples, in non-list format. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And for proof that the article for running gag can be expanded beyond a stub, see This Now, i can't read that, but it looks much longer than this current article. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the archive of this talk page; i noticed that there never actually consensus. around 3 talked about the list being removed; but there was never an official ruling. also; so far; the consensus is 2-1 reinstate the list. i doubt anymore people will come here and vote since it's been a couple months without anything. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact there are two editors who want the list added (LukeTheSpook and Vanessaezekowitz) and two that don't (Eurosong and JediLofty). I'd call that "no consensus" to add the list. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)