Talk:In-joke: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:12, 5 June 2004

Latest revision as of 21:21, 3 February 2024

(47 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{oldafdfull|page=In-joke}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|

{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=mid}}

}}

==Old talk==

Why is this not at [[In joke]]?[[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]] 22:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Line 4 ⟶ 10:

We've got a redirect on [[In-joke]] to [[In joke]], yet the article starts with '''in-joke'''. Decision, please! My vote's for "in-joke". -- [[User:Rissa of the saiya-jin|Rissa]] 03:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still vote for "inside joke". --[[User:Furrykef|Furrykef]] 07:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right. Where's that page on naming conventions? -- [[User:Rissa of the saiya-jin|Rissa]] 19:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] --[[User:Furrykef|Furrykef]] 03:58, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

typo fairy seems not to be an injoke, see [[Talk:Typo_fairy]] - [[User:Melaen|Melaen]] 22:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know the origins of the Story ideas coming from a mail-order business in Schenectady, New York: Science fiction authors joke? --[[User:Nynexman4464|Nynexman4464]] 22:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::I also vote at [[inside joke]], but it's pretty late... Is it too late to start a survey? --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 22:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

== self referential humor ==

''people who read the same encyclopedia''

Nice!

--[[User:ZekeMacNeil|ZekeMacNeil]] 02:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

:I wonder if this is a meta-in-joke... --[[User:Sum0|Sum0]] 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

:Shame it's been removed. [[User:Pianostar9|Pianostar9]] ([[User talk:Pianostar9|talk]]) 13:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

== [[:Category:In-jokes]] ==

It occurs to me that a lot of the "In-Jokes" in the category are really just "references" or "running gags". I support removal of "No-one expects the spanish inquisition!", "These aren't the droids you're looking for" and "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything". --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 22:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

:And no attept at all is made to show users WHY certain mentions are in-jokes. Okay, the typo fairy is listed... WHY is that an in-joke? It's sort of a complicated thing to express, but at the moment, the "Examples" is really just a pretty non-sensical list. For example (using one that needs to be cut), "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"- The tag line for characters in a recurring Monty Python skit. Something like that, anyway. Someone thought it was an inside joke because they figured only Monty Python fans would know it, and you can get a sense for that with this description. And yes, things like "These aren't the droids..." isn't an inside joke. Like "One ring to rule them all"- it's currently so pop culture, that the general population does know about it, thus running counter to the definition. [[User:Gspawn|Gspawn]] 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::Really, if it doesn't have to be explained, then it's not really an in-joke, then, is it? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mark Foskey|Mark Foskey]] ([[User talk:Mark Foskey|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mark Foskey|contribs]]) 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

'''Lawyer jokes''' seem to be almost the opposite of in-jokes; they are jokes told widely outside the legal profession and are generally understood without any special insider knowledge. I've removed this category from the example list.[[User:Glendoremus|Glendoremus]] 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== "private joke"? ==

is it like a "private joke"?

:According to the page, it seems that it could be... [[User:85.226.122.222|85.226.122.222]] 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== Proposing major revision of this page ==

===Dictionary vs. Encyclopedia===

It seems to me that the most useful part of this page is the definition of "in-joke". To that extent, I think it belongs entirely in a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. The material that fills it out doesn't deepen the reader's understanding of what an in-joke is or how it functions. It is, rather, two sets of examples, neither of which could ever be complete, and neither of which is rich with archetypal examples. I propose that the entire page be turned into a link to the [[Wiktionary]] page for [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inside_joke inside joke].

===Lists of groups of people===

The list of examples of the kinds of groups who might share an in-joke is unnecessary. We could never list all the possible groups of people who might share an inside joke. It is not a well-defined nor finite set of elements (unlike, say, the disputed but still apprehendable list of [[planet|planets]] or a list of [[List of Limerick people|notable people from Limerick, Ireland]]. As the Wiktionary definition says, the people who share an in-joke are "certain people who are in the know". ''Any'' group of people could be "in the know" about a given in-joke. I propose removing the list entirely.

===Places where in-jokes are found===

Yes, they are often found in movies. They are often found in offices, schools, bars, playgrounds, sports teams, family gatherings, Ice Capades reunions and just about any other gathering of people. To what end do we need to focus on movies or TV?

===Examples===

To be useful, shouldn't a list of examples of inside jokes highlight the most significant or archetypal inside jokes? Right now, this is a hodge-podge lists of inside jokes from particular professions, TV shows, a rock band, and various other places. Perhaps it needs to be sub-categorized and expanded ad infinitum, until it includes every conceivable in-joke known to mankind.

I would love to hear some thoughts about other approaches to make this page more encyclopedic and focused. Right now it seems best to turn it into a dictionary entry.--[[User:Glp|Glp]] 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the greatest in-jokes are in games. Old-style text adventures are famous for them- "xyzzy" and "a maze of twisty little passages" are two of the most famous ones. (see [[Colossal Cave]] or [[Zork]]) If there's a list of significant in-jokes, those should definately be included. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.10.48.39|71.10.48.39]] ([[User talk:71.10.48.39|talk]]) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I could think of some Inside Jokes that me and my friends came up with. Like when me and my friend Dalton went to see the movie [[The Unborn (2009 film)]], Which by the way was horrible, we came apon a really funny line. The line was "Jumbi wants to be born now.", which is said by the little boy. It became a inside joke between us because of two things; One, the movie was really horrible and we totally regret wasting our money on it, and I like to tease him and my self for wasting our money, and two, the way in which the quote was said. The boy said it with a really monotone voice, which is totally imitatible. That is a pretty good example of a inside joke. [[Special:Contributions/70.90.174.173|70.90.174.173]] ([[User talk:70.90.174.173|talk]]) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Dictionaric ==

This should definitely be a dictionary entry. Unless there is a body of knowledge about in-jokes that the reader can be introduced to, then the only information is what the term means and whether to have a hyphen, basically dictionary things.

[[User:Mark Foskey|Mark Foskey]] ([[User talk:Mark Foskey|talk]]) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed. In its current state, when deleted unreferenced albeit naive/trivial classification and a bunch of examples, the article is completely non-encyclopedic. `'[[user:mikkalai|Míkka]][[user talk:mikkalai|>t]] 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed as well. It would make me very happy to see these leave the encyclopedia, for all the reasons you suggest. --[[User:Glp|Glp]] ([[User talk:Glp|talk]]) 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

the game is a pretend blood and so is 50 cent

is a pretend gangster

he thinks that his father

made him famouse

but on get rich or die tryin

he had no father

------------------------------------------- <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.70.58.213|83.70.58.213]] ([[User talk:83.70.58.213|talk]]) 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== re dictionarial nature of article ==

an [[in-joke]] is, of course, a concept with which the [[layperson]] is concerned - as a result, of course, our wikipedian article's nature seems [[definitional]] rather than [[encyclopedic]]

& this is happening all over the place, specifically with what we can call a "layconcept" - let simply "concept" serve as the other side of the temporary dichotomy, where the concept is observed then analyzed then named & the layconcept is named then analyzed then observed

right now our [[in-joke]] is a layconcept in development - it has been named (through [[folk etymology]] obviously) but it has not been analyzed and finally observed

apparently i'm suggesting that our article here should be as short as possible, as should any-and-all layconcept articles - a brief definition of the phenomenon should be given & it should include as many inter-wiki links to relevant/related concepts (note that a concept's article is of the format we currently use across the board/wiki) - the remainder of the layconcept article should include at-least hypothesized concepts from which the layconcept has sprung, & at-best ones with citations.

so for some layconcept like [[in-joke]] we should include links to concepts like [[in-group]] or [[rapport]] or [[alienation]] etcetera.

i've stumbled upon suggestion of a rather major policy change, haven't i. where does one submit such a thing so that it could be considered & possibly employed across the wiki?

[[User:Harlequence|Harlequence]] ([[User talk:Harlequence|talk]]) 10:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Memes ==

Shouldn't this page link to internet memes? [[Special:Contributions/69.132.79.61|69.132.79.61]] ([[User talk:69.132.79.61|talk]]) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

== You made me lose the game! ==

Why the heck is there a reference to the game?

--[[Special:Contributions/82.84.186.156|82.84.186.156]] ([[User talk:82.84.186.156|talk]]) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

== Computer Industry section ==

I've edited this section a bit, but I don't see how easter eggs are relevant to in-jokes unless by conicidence they are both.

Simply hiding a signature is not of itself an in-joke. The vast majority of software is the property of whoever paid for its development, and it is highly unusual - as in most industries outside of entertainment - to credit employees for a company's product.

I think this section basically says "Some software contains hidden functions". Which is entirely irrelevant to them being in-jokes. [[Special:Contributions/178.164.139.37|178.164.139.37]] ([[User talk:178.164.139.37|talk]]) 12:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

== Changing the name of the article to "Inside joke" ==

Merriam Webster suggests that inside joke is a much more popular phrase than in-joke (It lists the former in the top 10% popular words while the latter in the top 50%). Should we change the name to inside joke?

[[User:Lone Warrior 007|Lone Warrior 007]] ([[User talk:Lone Warrior 007|talk]]) 17:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

:Most of the article's sources are offline so I can't say how strongly they support the "in-joke" construction. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=in+joke%2C+inside+joke&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cin%20joke%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cinside%20joke%3B%2Cc0 Ngrams] suggest that "in-joke" was used before the 1960s and that "inside joke" is currently the more frequently used term. I've only ever heard "inside joke" used, but that could be an Americanism. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

::Sorry for replying so late, for some reason I didn't get notified about your reply. Anyways, I am from India and I have also only heard "inside joke" being used, but that could be because I was born in this millennium. As you would have noticed, I am a newbie editor and hence wanted to ask you if the title should be changed?[[User:Lone Warrior 007|Lone Warrior 007]] ([[User talk:Lone Warrior 007|talk]]) 21:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Lone Warrior 007}}, I'm kind of ambivalent now. When I checked [[JSTOR]], I found twice as many papers using "in joke"/"in-joke" as "inside joke". I think the article would be fine under either title, with the other title redirecting to it. And in that case, it's probably not worth swapping them. Readers can find the content by either term, since [[:Inside joke]] redirects here. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

::::{{u|Schazjmd}} Oh, I see. Yeah, we should let the title remain the same. Thank you! [[User:Lone Warrior 007|Lone Warrior 007]] ([[User talk:Lone Warrior 007|talk]]) 12:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)