Talk:You have two cows

I can't find the article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates where it should have been. But it isn't on Wikipedia:Feature candidates/Archived nominations or Wikipedia:Featured articles either, so it seems never to have been on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page. Could the person wanting to nominate the article put it on the Wiki:FA canditates page and write there why s/he wants to nominate it? And then move the above notice as well to the article itself (where it should officially be)? Otherwise I'll remove the nominated notice. (By the way, I liked the article but I think it can still be made better.) Paul/laudaka (add me to your Y!M/AIM/etc. list if you like!) | Talk 17:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm fairly sure this one predates the wide availability of the internet. I saw a version in the early 80's from my mother, who was working in a primary school at the time.

So did I, around 1987. It was actually a poster, with cartoon illustrations, and was "localised" to the UK, e.g. it had the Tory party, Labour party etc. as sections. -- DrBob

---

Shouldn't the intro in the article mention that this is where the name Tucows Inc. (http://www.tucows.com) came from in 1993? I think that's the kind of info that belongs in an encyclopedia, especially this one. --isis 11:22 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

--

Two fragments I did not see how to integrate

Cows are chosen as "cow" is an inherently funny word.

Noticeably absent: Post-Modernism and many others...

-- Rednblu 06:43, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Do we need to keep the last "contribution?" If it was posted by an American about Mexicans or Blacks, I would not be happy with the poster. Nothing currently in the article sinks to that level. Pakaran 21:42, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

What about Shit happens??? Examples:

Catholicism: "If shit happens I deserve it"

Judaism: "Why is this shit always happening to me?"

Comunism: "When shit happens, it is for everybody"

Televangelism: "Send money or shit will happen to you"

And my personal favourite...

Jehovah's witnesses: "Knock! Knock! Shit happens!"

~I think it would be nice and funny to have a Shit happens page, but maybe is offensive... Muriel Gottrop 16:25, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Surely "offensive" depends on your POV. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. QED. HTH. HAND. Phil 16:48, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's offensive at all, despite being a (critical) catholic. I'm just afraid that we have people accusing us of attacking religion... Maybe we could make fun of all of them :) Muriel Gottrop

That has to be the best way :-) Phil 17:13, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, i'm going to do it! Muriel

---

Contents

1 In reference to "These definitions are examples of the first Internet jokes that circulated in the early days of the Internet." 2 Self-references 3 Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted) 3.1 You have two cows

In reference to "These definitions are examples of the first Internet jokes that circulated in the early days of the Internet."

Granted the "two cows" jokes have been around a long time, but it seems to me that they are predated by other joke series -- if jokes that were being circulated on paper in the '80s are considered to have antedated the Internet then the same must be said about jokes that were common on Usenet.

The jokes that come to mind are first, the ever lengthening list of lightbulb jokes and second, the jokes about a string in a bar. -- jbl

---

Why are these organized alphabetically? I seem to recall them being funnier when they were ordered as a political critique that got steadily more outrageous? 207.189.98.44 20:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Is this how Tucows (http://tucows.com/) got its name?? -- Timwi 17:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

We need two cows in the pic, not one lonely cow. A cow and a bull will also do. Try some from Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/ASCII cows. Jay 07:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Self-references

I just removed a joke on Wikipedia, for the second time. This one was funnier than the first one a few months ago, but it's not appropriate for the article space. It's an in-joke that's unfunny to anyone but Wikipedians, it's a form of "original research" since it's presumably made up by the contributor, and it also violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. That said, I'm going to put it on BJAODN. Isomorphic 04:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

You have two cows

(Contested - July 12)

Excellent piece. I copyedited some of it, but otherwise not a self-nom. Neutrality 02:30, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Article is mostly a list, and a sourcetext list at that. Snowspinner 02:33, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The list doesn't belong here. Should give only a couple of examples, examining them in detail. The non-list material is good, however. 195.167.169.36 09:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. This is an encyclopaedia, not a (very unfunny) joke book. Bmills 09:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Agree. If anything it demonstrates the strengths and power of referentiality of Wikipedia. Besides which some Wikipedians have a sense of humour. Nothing wrong with making the public aware of the fact. Sjc 12:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be nominated again, now that we have an image and the jokes are gone? (Disclosure: I re-wrote most of the intro a while back so it's partly a self-nomination.) Lawrence Lavigne 07:16, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

---

The list of jokes really really has to go. It adds nothing to the article; Wikipedia is not a joke book. If anyone has a good reason why not, please say so... —Kate | Talk 05:25, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

You mean just this article or all articles listed under Category:Jokes ? Jay 09:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not even this article - only the list of jokes. —Kate | Talk 15:36, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

Spend some time looking at the pages off of Category:Jokes, a number of them have lists of jokes within the article. If we're making the move to a "List of" article, we should do that universally. -FunnyMan 12:51, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

It's quite possible other articles also need fixing if they have lists as long as this one. In any case someone else has sorted this article out while I wasn't looking. I wouldn't be surprised if the new List of "You have two cows" jokes found a home on VfD soon, since it really adds nothing to Wikipedia (the fact that there are other bad articles isn't justification for more, and I don't believe being "entertaining" is one of Wikipedia's aims). —Kate | Talk 13:09, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Feel free to add it there, we'll see how it fares. -FunnyMan 15:05, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to - it's not doing any harm now - but there are people who'd rather this whole article went away ;-) —Kate | Talk 15:22, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

I'd rather a lot of things went away. It doesn't mean that they will, or even that it's a good idea. I'll watch the new page carefully. -FunnyMan 18:05, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'll agree that a huge list does not belong in this article, but if you haven't noticed, lists of various kinds ARE a part of Wikipedia. For instance, List of song titles phrased as questions or List of songs whose main title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics. If music lovers can have that kind of list, I see no reason why we couldn't have a List of two cows jokes. If you'd prefer, there are quite a few of these that are (potentially) useful in the article they reference. Feel free to move them. Or perhaps just put them in a You have two cows/examples subpage. Please, though, don't just get rid of this list, a lot of it is entertaining. -FunnyMan 05:26, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, what about moving it to List of You have two cows jokes? They're currently several times longer than the useful parts of the article. —Kate | Talk 15:36, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that, I suggested effectively the same idea in the post you replied to. -FunnyMan 12:51, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

We illustrate this with a picture of three cows? Photoshop anyone? DJ Clayworth 17:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)