Talk:light bulb joke

light bulb joke
Seems SOP to me. Even before I clicked the link (at [[light bulb]]), and even though I don't believe I've ever heard the term before, it was obvious to me what it must refer to. (Is this a "set phrase" for anyone?) —Ruakh TALK 01:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like it. I suppose it's comparable to knock-knock joke: in that both imply a certain structure not obvious from the name: for knock-knock jokes, it's the "knock-knock, who's there?" and for light-bulb jokes, it's the "how many (people) does it take...?" Equinox ◑ 02:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious with enough cultural background, but not from the name alone. If it's kept, it would set a low water mark... not precedent though, thanks to the similar Egyptian pyramid. Frankly, I'm not sure I could justify its deletion. DAVilla 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does get 188 Google Book hits, so it is attestable. Like DAVilla says, not so easily decodable from the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not sum of parts as it's not just any joke about a light bulb; it's a specific genre of joke. Without the cultural knowledge, no one would know what a light bulb joke is on the basis of its name alone. —Angr 15:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Angr; the joke is almost always a commentary on the people screwing in the bulb, for which the bulb itself is a mere prop; compare: "What did one light bulb say to the other? You're a very bright fellow!"; a joke about light bulbs, obviously, but not a "light bulb joke". bd2412 T 16:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should be clear enough that it's a joke formula involving light bulbs, but what that formula is (let alone what the subtext is) would not be guessable by a person who hadn't seen or heard one. Has anyone thought about citations for the term? It might also be interesting to know when they first appeared, or at least when the term light bulb joke: was first used. — Pingkudimmi 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the above three comments, but also, from my point of view, I did not understand the meaning of the "sum of parts" and thought it was comparable to "light bulb moment". --Dmol 21:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think it's a good indicator, that if it has its own (uncontroversial) Wikipedia article, that the term is not merely SoP. ~ heyzeuss 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Kept by clear consensus. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)