![]() We think that since they are more like lists, they should be counted as such. Cool and I had a brainstorming session on IRC about that ^^^. ![]() What to do with non-bona-fide running gagsĮ.L. It won't be difficult for them to navigate through the categories. Do you think it might be confusing to some users to have separate "repeated joke" and "running gag" categories? Trey 56 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I think that the distinction is a true one, but in some ways it seems like splitting hairs to me. I think I see so something like Puking may be more of a "repeated joke", than a "running gag". 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. "Repeat Appearances" or "Repeated Objects" or "Repeated Things" or something similar would be my vote for the new name for this category. Like the new School article – the existance of Crazy Go Nuts University doesn't make Teen Girl Squad Issue 4 any funnier, for instance. are similar things that reappear on the site, but aren't necessarily any funnier from having happened before, usually from being too loosely linked.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. Clear examples are things like the Floppy Disk Container or Homestar's Pants. Most of the humour comes from recognising that it's a running gag. 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.Clear examples are things like $11.01, or "Thanks for breaking my moose lamp" in portrait. ![]() Otherwise they'll seem either inconspicious or non sequitur.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |