Talk:In-joke

message: people who read the same encyclopedia
Nice!
--ZekeMacNeil 02:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this is a meta-in-joke... --Sum0 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Shame it's been removed. Pianostar9 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  self referential humor 

message: 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".  --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. Gspawn 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, if it doesn't have to be explained, then it's not really an in-joke, then, is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Foskey (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:In-jokes]] 

message: is it like a "private joke"?
:According to the page, it seems that it could be... 85.226.122.222 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "private joke"? 

message: ===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 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 planets or a list of 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.--Glp 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing major revision of this page 

message: 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.--Glp 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: 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.
Mark Foskey (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In its current state, when deleted unreferenced albeit naive/trivial classification and a bunch of examples, the article is completely non-encyclopedic. `'Míkka>t 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. It would make me very happy to see these leave the encyclopedia, for all the reasons you suggest. --Glp (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionaric 

message: 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?
Harlequence (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  re dictionarial nature of article  

message: Shouldn't this page link to internet memes? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memes 

message: Why the heck is there a reference to the game? 
--82.84.186.156 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  You made me lose the game! 

message: 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.  178.164.139.37 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer Industry section 

message: 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?
Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article's sources are offline so I can't say how strongly they support the "in-joke" construction. 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. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see. Yeah, we should let the title remain the same. Thank you! Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the name of the article to "Inside joke"