Talk:Laughter/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sassenach75.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nelcia.maximay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and Burlusconi

I know that this is a very tricky article, but can we do better than this picture? It seems fairly self-evident that this photo was posed and that they aren't, in fact, laughing. 96.50.10.234 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Lame Article

I find two huge holes in this article that an encyclopedic article wouldn't have:

Physiology of Laughter: The physiological process is complicated enough to make it an actual instinct, one that humans have relatively few of. For instance, the sex act is not instinctual.
Laughter is so pervasive that it obviously provides some evolutionary advantage far more that some psychological release.

I hope those better at this than I am would find research on this and add it to the article. 94.253.151.47 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its nice. I would also like to read on how laughter is associated with grace. Maybe touching on religious topics. I also like the idea of laughter being a cure of cancerous affected people that like to smoke cigarettes. 72.178.148.112 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wrong. Titter mean shame on you. Not laugh maybe it means both but the word titter is not mentioned. Which makes me furious. So I say titter to this page and who made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.154.150 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2012‎

The Child

The child is very cute but why is it always children in articles like this? --212.247.27.49 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's because children laugh a lot, and adults tend to have less 'pure' laughter, they tend to laugh when it would result in personal gain; young children don't fake it. They just laugh their hearts out. Varnis 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varnis, please don't edit my posts without messaging me. That message was originally mine and was slightly shorter. Varnish1 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Tag

There are many complaints about the overly philisophical nature of this article in this talk page - I totally agree and tried to resort the sections to make this artcile start with the facts and then move, as it does, into the theories. Unfortunatly, the (now) later sections on "congnitive models" appear to me to be original research which has no home in Wikipedia. I remember a time when this was a simple, elegant article on laughter, not a stuffy (and punishably not-funny) tretise about what I should and should not laugh at. PaigePhault 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought - I think this article should dispense with anything related to humor, comedy, jokes etc. and refer to those articles. This article should be quite limited to the description of what laughter is, and, present what is known about how it occurs (physiologically). The fact that laughter is pleasurable, and that societies try to create circumstances that lead to laughter is as far as this article should delve into the philosophical. But... I would like to hear others' opinions in this regard. PaigePhault 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article start out with a quote from Aristotle saying that laughter is confined to the human species, and then end with a paragraph about how other animals laugh too? Guypersonson 05:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women produce "sing-song" laughter 50% of the time, whereas men grunt or snort as often as they make "sing-song" laughter.

This reads like they are both doing the same thing. Removed until clarification. --Eloquence 13:56 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I think it would read better as-

"Women produce "sing-song" laughter 50% of the time but rarely grunt or snort: men grunt or snort as often as they make "sing-song" laughter."

That should be clearer. -David Stewart 07:11 28 May 2003 (UTC)

It is, but if you are that specific, you should name the source. Great article, BTW. It appears that neither Britannica Concise nor encyclopedia.com nor Columbia have an article about laughter. --Eloquence

Thanks. The source is one of the cited articles: I'll try and locate it. - David Stewart 07:52 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Keke

Keke redirects to this page without explanation. "Keke" is never mentioned in the article. Could someone explain it?

"keke", or "kekeke" (which also redirects here), are both commonly accepted as how koreans say "hahaha". whether that is true or not, i cant say, but i'd bet money many wikipedians who are online gamers have seen that phrase before.

Is that, like, that sound you make when you're cracking up and you make carbonation sounds with air escaping over the tongue pressed against the palate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What I find funny is that "kekekeke" redirects to Laughter, but "kekekekeke" redirects to Korean language. (Myscrnnm 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Snicker?

How come snicker re-directs here but there is no mention of the word snicker in the article?

Does it need to have such? It basically has the same meaning, if it was necesarry, we'd probably be forced to crack open a thesauras ever time an artical was made. -FallingSkies 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter Hiffzil Noh (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

The article of laughter said it needed sections inserted and I inserted them. Am i supposed to tell someone i did this? The article still says it needs sections inserted and is still on a lsit of articles needing headings. Ifixmanypages

You need to remove the template at the top of the page that says it needs sections after adding the sections. Anyway the template was removed a while back.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only Humans?

I've read that non-human apes also laugh. I'll try to find sources on this. --George100 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction?

Why does the introduction to this article sound like a philosophy term paper?

[personal attack removed per WP:RPA] 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contagious?

Well...First of all, when my friend laughs the others begin softly laughing but I don't? Is it like some laughters are contagious to certain people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.120.0.58 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That sounds right... Maybe it should be taken out of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.71.97 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.38.82 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be left in. It is cited, whereas personal experience is original research. Some people never catch the flu (influenza, not the common cold) in their lifetimes, but that does not mean that the flu is not contagious. (124.170.6.214 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Death by Laughter

There are some accounts of this in the Fatal hilarity article. Might be worth a mention. --130.92.9.58 12:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gelotology

The Gelotology article is almost identical to parts of this article. I think the Gelotology article should be reduced to a simple explanation that it is the study of the physiology of laughter and any other details can be moved into the Laughter article. Clerks. 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

File:KildLaughing.jpg

FYI:This image will be deleted July 1, 2007

We have two photos for the lead, one of a baby that could either be laughing or smiling, that appears to have copyright issues due to it being from a stock exchange website, and one with no copyright restrictions of a child laughing uproariously. Some votes on which the page prefers, please? --David Shankbone 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young child picture is much better, the other one looks like a sufferer of spasticity.

Unfortunately, the young child is not "free media" per it's license and is to be deleted off the Commons. I also don't know what "sufferer of spasticity" means, but the child is clearly laughing.--David Shankbone 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't much like the photo of the "child laughing uproariously". he looks like there might be something really wrong with him, or that he is being forced into the photograph. child abuse? 71.112.142.5 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a kid being tickled by the photographer, who has one hand on a large DSLR camera. What more can say laughter? It's clearly not a look of horror or upset, but playful laughter. Given the amount of room behind him, he's free to run away and it's doubtful one mhand would be able to keep the kid from running, especially as the others maneuvers with a large camera. It's simply a child being tickled and laughing. --David Shankbone 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are other hands in the picture, you have to look closely. it isn't just the kid and the tickling hand. i don't know what the third person is doing but they might be restraining the boy. zoom in on the face and you'll see what looks liek someone in a lot of pain

They are not restraining the boy. The operator taking the picture is tickling the boy with one hand, as additionally two younger hands are tickling the boy near the kidney. No one is restraining the boy. If you are not in favour of the current picture, you are welcome to find one you find more appropiate, but I see no reason to. Paul 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both pictures are annoying and demonstrate self-evident emotions. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is not very aesthetic and should be removed. It also looks strange and may confuse the viewed on what actually is going on. Point blank: it is not a good photo. If people insist on having the photo in the article, a consensus should be open about it. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This photo honestly makes me think the kid is trying to act like some sort of evil elf that wants to kill people, not to mention the position of the camera is awful. Something that would be almost unmistakable as a laugh, such as this picture from a quick google images search would be better. That said, I do think it would be better to have a picture of a child on this article than anyone else. Can't someone just take their kid outside, have them sit on some grass, tell them a few jokes and take pictures of them laughing? That would work much better than this --L^augh! 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is whether this photo in particular need be there. I think the issue is that decent alternatives have yet to be proposed and the commons doesn't particularly have any. --David Shankbone 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is finding a picture of someone laughing really this hard? I'm pretty sure I can capture one of my friends laughing at some point and GFDL the photo. Or is a photo of a child preferably? Natalie 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone would be fine, I just think that a child is easier to distinguish laughing from, usually. Personally, I'd go with either a child, or a group of adults. A single adult would be kinda odd imo. --L^augh! 00:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and take a photo of children laughing also. --David Shankbone 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the tickling photo as the lead with a new one of children laughing. --David Shankbone 04:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is rather disturbing. I accept that the child is laughing, but a cropped image might be mistaken for someone writhing in pain. It's horrible.

82.40.163.5 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's because there isn't much difference between writhing when in pain and laughing when being tickled. Both are emotive/expressive reactions caused by physical stimuli, and both generally look/sound surprisingly similar. Laughing due to a physical stimulus is distinctly different from laughter based on happiness, or humor, just as screaming in pain is distinctly different from screaming in surprise. While this definitely isn't the best image, I think it does a decent job of illustrating that there's a difference. And if you think the photo is disturbing and horrible, maybe that's because tickling can be a rather distrubing and horrifying experience. Calgary (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to replace the lead photo of Goldie Hawn. It doesn't particularly capture 'laughter' and it doesn't seem like there was any discussion before its adoption. There doesn't appear to have been much movement here for while, so I thought I'd try pushing forward. Cheers! Bordwall (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead an changed it to File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-T0425-0005, Grevesmühlen, Bekleidungswerk, Wettbewerb.jpg, which I think is an improvement from the original which was File:Goldie Hawn cropped.jpg. Bordwall (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like this photograph. I must be one of the only people in this discussion that likes it. It symbolises magnificent joy to me. --Macaroniking (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stage laughter

You must mention stage laughter. The ability to laugh on cue by actors, unlike average people. You must mention it as you have deleted it. Jidanni 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how is that an ability? Fake laughter is very easy, most of us probably do it at least once or twice a day to move the conversation past a crappy pun --lucid 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then mention the dynamics of fake laughter, and that actors train on how to do it especially well. Jidanni 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have citations you can provide here of this phenomenon? And, if so, why does this belong on the laughter page and not the Acting page? --David Shankbone 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK all laughter is real and none is faked or staged and therefore that is all irrelevant and should not be mentioned and I give up. Jidanni 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it comes down to that this is unnotable. If we began listing on every page that actors "fake" whatever it is they are doing, we'll have an acting section for every emotion and action on Wikipedia. I don't see why Laughter is more notable than Crying or Dying. --David Shankbone 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come now people

"(though such citations may only lay credit to accounts such as Reefer Madness)"

I removed the above. This has nothing to do with Laughter as a topic, and certainly doesn't belong in the introduction to the article.Harley peters 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of laughter

This section of the article lacks information about how laughter is depicted in English. Max Sánchez 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I just noticed that myself. Someone should definitely add it. Calgary (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian depictions of laughter

Che che che could be added as sneering. Sneering was added to Japanese, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be in Lithuanian, though it's not important. --195.22.191.4 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.38.82 (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggested Addition to the Article

In his chief work, The World as Will and Representation, Arthur Schopenhauer describes the phenomenon of laughter. I believe this definition to be superior to any offered by the article. It reads as follows:

"I refer to laughter. On account of the origin of this phenomenon, we cannot refrain from speaking about it here, although once more it interrupts the course of our discussion. In every case, laughter results from nothing but the suddenly perceived incongruity between a concept and the real objects that had been thought through it in some relation; and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity. It often occurs through two or more real objects being thought through one concept, and the identity of the concept being transferred to the objects. But then a complete difference of the objects in other respects makes it strikingly clear that the concept fitted them only from a one-sided point of view. It occurs just as often, however, that the incongruity between a single real object and the concept under which, on the one hand, it has been rightly subsumed, is suddenly felt. Now the more correct the subsumption of such actualities under the concept from one standpoint, and the greater and more glaring their incongruity with it from the other, the more powerful is the effect of the ludicrous which springs from this contrast. All laughter therefore is occasioned by a paradoxical, and hence unexpected, subsumption, it matters not whether this is expressed in words or in deeds. This in brief is the correct explanation of the ludicrous.” (59)

This is merely a suggested addition to whomever it may concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.93.148 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

I really think the use of a carton image as the first image is inappropriate on a general article on laughter. Also using an image depicting minstrels begs much deeper commentary on depictions of laughter and race in the entertainment industry that this article doesn't (and I would say probably shouldn't) go into. -- SiobhanHansa 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social order

Hello. IMHO the article misses an important point on laughter that I saw in a program on Discovery channel. The program said that laughing is a social activity not only on promoting bonding but also in establishing social "pecking order". It said that people in a group were more likely to laugh, and laugh harder, on the jokes of a popular or more powerful person than a less popular or (socially) weaker person. Can anyone shed light on this and modify the article accordingly? Thanks ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic benefit

I found some info here and added chunks of it in the corresponding section. I know the info is not cited but I'll try to find some references in the nearest future. Actually, I was kind of surprised not to find the info not to be already included in this article.Siliconov (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"LOL" isn't mentioned at all!

cry* -208.126.51.56 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll figure out a way to add it's delightfulness

Happiness?

what has laughter to do with happiness?

you could say someone who is laughing looks happy, but that doesnot mean he is.

could we please put up some citations to either support the happiness statement or remove it completely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.230.125 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: people with Alzheimer's Dementia are unable to laugh. They can no longer experience joy. Laughter seems to require an intact mind. Onejackdaw (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of Laughter in Individual People

I remeber learning the following somewhere. It needs to go into the article, please help cite it:

As you probably know, newborns don't laugh. After some weeks, something happens and they begin to laugh. But what is that something?

As you probably know, very often it happens during a game of peek-a-boo. What happens is, someone the baby has learned to recognize and trust presents her face and startles the baby. The baby may start to shout or cry, but the brain has learned facial recognition well enough that the baby is able to understand that there is nothing to fear fast enough to stop the fear from becoming crying, and the brain is soothed into understanding, it's ok, it's just mommy who startled me, and the reaction morphs from a cry into laughter.

I think it might have been Piaget or someone like that who pointed this out. It's a known thing in the field of childhood development. It's important because it will allow the reader to see what laughter is really all about. It's essential to understanding laughter, so it must go in the article, but I'm afraid to put it in because it's going to look like original reasearch until we can figure out how to cite it properly.

Someone out there knows where this analysis comes from. All I can remember now is that I heard it somewhere, read it somewhere, that it's not just something I make up. It's obviously true though, as anyone who ever had a month or so age baby knows, but not something that people normally think about the significance of, and will improve the article.

Do you think it'd be ok if I did it up nice and encyclopedic and then added a "citation needed" tag onto it in the hopes that someone will come along and add a reference note? Surely it's obviously true enough to add without much danger of it being challenged as possibly false. Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "very often it happens during a game of peek-a-boo". Babies laugh at clapping hands, repetitive, melodious sounds, a happy, smiling and familiar face obviously directing "warm feelings" to the baby while "cooing", being carried in an exaggerated, up and down motion, having their own hands clapped together by someone... the list is all but endless and I doubt that many people could truly remember, or even know, the first time their baby laughed and why. It requires watching the baby constantly to know that it hasn't laughed until the occasion you think was the first. Besides, you are simply providing an example of infant laughter and the specific thoughts that trigger it; you are not actually explaining anything about laughter that is not explained in the section on causes. In the section on causes, what you say is stated generically and applies to all ages; an inconsistency perceived on some level as a threat, but resolved and realized not to be a threat, and the relief generates laughter. You, on the other hand, never explain what the "something" is, and you seem to think it is the ability to perceive an inconsistency. Really, the "something" that you speak about is knowledge about the way the world works, and that knowledge continues to accumulate throughout a lifetime. It is the reason that certain jokes are not understood without certain knowledge; if you don't know that police officers are stereotyped as loving doughnuts, a joke involving that stereotype will not generate laughter. If you are 8 years old, you won't "get" jokes based around sex. If you are a newborn baby, you will fear the sudden disappearance of your mother's face, because you don't realize it still exists. I don't think it is acceptable to add something to an article in the hope that someone will find out where it came from. Your theory of what is going on inside the baby's head is in the section on causes; you have simply applied that theory to a baby laughing at peek-a-boo, and it explains nothing more about laughter than an explanation of what is going on inside an adult's head when he or she laughs. (124.170.6.214 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think it was either piaget or desmond morris. This article should cite more famous experts on the subject. It's especially enlightening to what kinds of things make the very tiny babies laugh at the same time. I'll see if I can find the proper citations. Have you seen any research on the origin of laughter in babies? As I recall it's a reaction to a trusted or safe thing that does something scary, such as peek-a-boo. Very often it's peek-a-boo, or being hoisted in the air, swung around or down in a way that feels like falling but the baby is still being held or just tossed slightly. So it seems that, at it's simplest, laughter is a combination of fear and the realization that there's nothing to fear. Very interesting topic. Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

This parenthetical sentence: "(This is also why Doonesbury isn’t that funny.)" under Causes, looks like possible vandalism to me. Or maybe it's just poorly integrated and unsourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.120.110 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Added earlier today. I've removed it. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading definition

What about laughing at someone's fart? Is that "an audible expression of happiness, or an inward feeling of joy"? Fairly, that doesn't sound like a perspicuous definition to me. People don't start laughing when they pass an exam or get a new job, but they do when looking at a mountain that resembles a pair of buttocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.22.18 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The definition is too narrow. Laughter isn't just an expression of happiness or joy. Some people laugh when they're nervous, confused, uncomfortable or surprised. Metrowestjp (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for new section: History of laughter

Anyone else think there should be a section on the history of laughter? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is a lot of pretentious gobbledygook

198.189.194.129 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add non-human animals?

Rats Laugh, but Not Like Humans. Do animals other than humans have a sense of humor? Maybe so by Jesse Bering Scientific American June 22, 2012 (currently in Preview but will be a full non-paid article in less than a month). 108.73.114.104 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

laughing Berlusconni and George Bush

It looks to me this two guys are more like smiling rather than laughing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_and_Berlusconi_share_toast_%282008-10-13%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.151.10 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of voluntary, semi-voluntary or involuntary action see heading.

questions of voluntary, semi-voluntary or involuntary action

see heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter essay Inzamam ul haq bajwa (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

300 times a day?

I am struggling to find a source for the rather surprising claim that children laugh 300 times a day (my own kids are cheerful little people but 300 times? 300??) This site - http://www.laughteryogaamerica.com/read/blog/children-laugh-300400-times-day-true-false-false-4469.php -claims that the 300 figure refers to smiling, not laughing. Neezes (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snigger - different, distinct physical rendition

IMO a "snigger" has a physically distinct mode of execution. The laugh is suppressed - the pressure from the lungs is held on the soft palette, where it leaks through, causing a vibration high up behind the nose. The failure to completely suppress the laugh is what causes the snigger. Anyone agree? Should then Snigger have a separate page(!).

I agree --Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benign Violation Theory

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/mcgrawp/Benign_Violation_Theory.html Is it worth including some reference to this? "humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied: (1) a situation is a violation, (2) the situation is benign, and (3) both perceptions occur simultaneously. For example, play fighting and tickling, which produce laughter in humans (and other primates), are benign violations because they are physically threatening but harmless attacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.31.2 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061129005110/http://www.sciencenews.org:80/articles/20010728/fob9.asp to http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010728/fob9.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Kekekekeke" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kekekekeke. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Kekekekeke until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

🤭?

🤭 redirects here with no explanation. Could someone please explain this to me? It isn’t even a laughing emoji, it is a shocked emoji with the hand over the mouth. Maybe remove this redirect altogether?—Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. jp×g 02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 2600:1002:B17C:D85B:E1E2:F868:950B:EC17 (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging evil laugh

the various Wikipedia articles on various types of laughter could be merged into this overarching topic. seriously. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)

Snicker should redirect to Snickers and not here

"Snicker" is an archaic term for laughter. Most people searching that are looking for the candy brand, not laughter. Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 01:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why redirect away from the meaning to a chocolate bar? "snicker". Cambridge Dictionary. Dec 7, 2022. Retrieved Dec 10, 2022. snicker-verb - to laugh at someone or something in a silly and often unkind way. Moxy-

02:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Redirects on Wikipedia is to allow an article to be searched under multiple terms. Someone searching for "Snicker" is most likely looking for the candy bar. A Google Search for "Snicker" gives you results for the candy bar. Wikipedia titles follow common usage, so should Redirects. I'm sorry you don't like that common usage deviates from the actual meaning. Like I stated before, here on Wikipedia we follow common usage not correct usage. Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any source for this POV...perhaps this is what a teenager is looking for but anyone with any academic experience understands there's a meaning to the word.... it has zero meaning to some sort of American chocolate bar. We should be trying to educate our readers not perpetuates stupidity. Moxy-

03:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add one of those thingies that say "Snicker redirects here, for the candy see Snickers"? Amogus girl (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]