Rename?: Dont Explain The Joke

"I don't see why we need to have two different tropes for "killing the joke by explaining the punchline" and "killing the joke by explaining some part of the setup"."

I don't see anyone here suggesting a split. The point is that explaining the setup is not to be done at all.

But that's the way the trope is used, fairly often. The explanation is about some part of the set-up that affects the punchline.

Alice: "Why won't sharks eat lawyers?"

Bob: "I don't know. Why?"

Alice: "Professional courtesy."

Bob: (doesn't laugh)

Alice: (explains the concept of "professional courtesy")

Did she explain the punchline or the set-up? I say it could legitimately be considered either — or both.

First of all, it was tropers potholing the context that is mainly the problem.

Second, that's not explaining the punchline. That would be "because lawyers are seen as no better than sharks". It would be explaining why it was professional courtesy, not what that concept is.

And asking for context info on a joke wouldn't be a trope itself. It would more be a kind of The Watson.

edited 26th Dec '11 6:29:46 PM by DragonQuestZ

Also, the explanation doesn't actually kill the joke, as the joke was already dead when Bob didn't get it.

edited 27th Dec '11 1:40:13 AM by petrie911

Yeah, the joke or punchline thing is too fine a split. It is all about wrecking the joke.

edited 27th Dec '11 10:03:29 AM by FastEddie

Why do we have a page which advises using the word "trope" as a placeholder?

edited 27th Dec '11 10:59:47 AM by TripleElation

We don't, anymore. I pulled a bunch of stuff from it and locked it. Case of the article drifting into contradicting itself without constant oversight.

edited 27th Dec '11 11:13:50 AM by FastEddie

Explaining a joke means to tell how the joke works. About the only time explaining the context would be also explaining the joke would be something like an association or stereotype (like why a Lightbulb Joke about a certain nationality applies).

I tend to agree with your changes, but why was it locked?

Just popping in to second that it doesn't need a rename. Herculean effort and a lot of confusion for a problem unrelated to the name.

People potholing this trope name for things that seem like the trope name, but not the trope definition, is stemming from the trope name.

Then again, I need to check more wicks.

• Spike Of All Trades: Assuming that's a quote from Dr Horrible, it's not explaining the joke. It's stating what the fan theory is.
• Splinter Cell: That isn't a joke at all. That's giving away a twist.
• Headscratchers.Sponge Bob Square Pants: Correct. It's a troper pothole, but it's in the proper form of this trope.
• SpongeBob SquarePants: Explaining a trope namer is not explaining a joke, even if it is a joke page.
• Funny.Sports Center: Mistaking "don't" as an action rather than a command.
• ThanksKilling: Correct.
• DethroningMoment.That Guy With The Glasses: I think I'd have to see the video.
• Characters.That Guy With The Glasses: Hard to tell without context.
• Funny.That Guy With The Glasses: That's not explaining. That's just stating what happened.
• That Guy With The Glasses: The only context is "Epic Fail". That's not even an example. That's just a Take That!, with using this trope as a Complaining tool.
• The Looney Tunes Show: I guess it's correct. Would have to see that short.
• Funny.The Lord Of The Rings: That's not explaining a joke. That's making a put down.
• The Love Guru: Correct.
• The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh: That's wild mass guessing, not explaining.
• The Masochism Tango: I guess correct, but it's a troper pothole.
• Unreal Tournament 2004: Not only is it a troper pothole, it's explaining the context, when the actual use of the trope would be the "dam" pun.
• Unwilling Suspension: Telling someone that something is a joke is not explaining the meaning of the joke, context or punchline.
• Up: Correct.
• Uranus Is Showing: Her being not amused isn't the joke. Her name is the joke.
  • The other two uses are quotes, and therefore correct.
• Urine Trouble: Correct. It's not needed in the description, but it's correct.
• FanNickname.Video Games T-Z: Misused for explaining the context.
• Vision Of Escaflowne Abridged: No, that's just plain Sarcasm Mode.
• Visual Pun: Misused for explaining the context.
• Vocal Dissonance: That's not a joke at all.
• V to X: I've seen the comic, and although it once in a while explains the punchline in the blurbs, I'm not sure if they meant when the comic explains the context, which is more often.
• Wheezy Waiter: No context on the first example, but the second is misusing this for Running Gag.
• When Things Spin, Science Happens: Troper pothole, and that whole entry is just awkwardly written.
• Where Are You From: That's explaining a reference, not a punchline.
• Where the Hell Is Springfield?: Three uses.
  • Um, is it accusing the last entry of doing this? Well that entry is not. It's just trying to state the most likely reason for this trope on The Simpsons.
  • That's giving context. The punchline is that it means that they are banned from even the state of their hometown.
  • That's just giving more context to how this trope is applied on that show.
• Who Forgot The Lights?: Correct, although a troper pothole.
• Yes Minister: Misusing this for giving context and background.
• You Are the Translated Foreign Word: Misused for explaining the context.
• You Can't Handle the Parody: Having the same voice actor isn't the puncline.
• You Fight Like a Cow: Correct.
• You Need to Get Laid: Correct, since that's covered in the trope.

Okay, we should probably get a page action crowner in here.

Really? First let's see if can get a second on the motion.

Well I second, but I also ask which actions to propose.

I too support the motion.

Which motion?

Making a page action crowner. Something like we do nothing but clean up examples and wicks, or we rename it, or we redefine it, etc.

edited 31st Dec '11 11:42:54 AM by DragonQuestZ

Page action crowner here. If you can think of another reasonable suggestion to add, please do so.

Bumping for more votes.

I really think you're making mountains out of molehills here, Z. Cleaning up and/or renaming a few thousand wicks is a lot of work for a harmless joke.

Splitting off "The joke wasn't funny until someone pointed out why its supposed to be funny" has some merit. I'm adding it to the crowner, though I'm not voting it up yet.

"I really think you're making mountains out of molehills here, Z. Cleaning up and/or renaming a few thousand wicks is a lot of work for a harmless joke."

How is rampant misuse a harmless joke? Misuse is people getting the trope wrong. That's not a joke. It's showing a trope name is bad.

BTW, the splitting part isn't mutually exclusive to other options (as in we would still clean up the current trope).

Or that might be a bit confusing. I added a combo option instead. Bumping for more votes.

Okay, it looks like we might be able to do both top options (splitting and redefining), but troper potholes should still be cut regardless.

And even with a redefinition, explaining a term to help set up the joke is not explaining it. Some successful jokes often involve giving a little background.