Uncyclopedia talk:In-jokes

I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, but it would be nice if it were made clear that Euroipods Crusade came before Fisher Price: A Retrospective. Though the retrospective is obviously better done, as it is written now it seems like this article is claiming "the Crusade" was a rip-off of the idea of the retrospective, which isn't the case. Being as how I'm the writer or Crusade, I don't feel like I'm impartial in this matter, so I'll leave the decision on what to do about it to someone else.--<<>> 14:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--<<>> 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is fantastic. Someone (far older than me) ought to address the proliferation of Steve Ballmer/Kanye West quotes in late 2005/early 2006. We must face our history unblinkingly.--Procopius 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would do, but I wasn't really here to experience the actual event, only the mass crackdown earlier this year. So, I leave it to anyone with any experience of it to do so. Otherwise, I shall make it up... -- Hindleyite Converse 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We had a proliferation of Steve Ballmer/Kayne West quotes? (Mhaille searches the dark corners of his mind to recall).....nope....its all blanked out. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Didn't it go the other way? Like "George Bush doesnt care about [insert object here]" See Mormon for an example. However, it can go the other way, like in American. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but [[[Insert title here]]] uses the "George Bush" version, so that should be the version on the page. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As I remember, the joke was usually employed as "(Object) doesn't care about black people." The Bermuda Triangle quote, for instance, was actually on the I Fucking Hate the Bermuda Triangle page. So that's the way I did it. However, I only came at the tail end of that stuff, so if an admin can confront the demons of that time and provide the proper context, I won't complain.--Procopius 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original format was "George Bush doesn't care about [object]". - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

USERNAME

Should we add a reference to the use of the {{USERNAME}} template? That seems like an inside joke that we've buried into the ground. -- Kip > Talk • Works • •

I think we should ask... no, I'm not going to do it, it's just too old. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

FU Spang

Shouldn't FU Spang thing be added to this?--Scott 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we knew its history. --AAA! (AAAA) 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll need some solid references from at least 3 reliable news sources, too. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:20, 03 Dec 2007

This should be in there, too.

I don't see any mention of grue. WTF? There's just this tiny mention under "Zork." It deserves its own spot.

Yeah. We should also add I burning your dog and other classics on the list, instead of throwing new IRC memes on there an calling them in-jokes for the rest of eternity. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"I burning your dog" isn't an Uncyc in-joke (of course, neither are grues) - I'd seen it on either the Straight Dope Message Board or Fark, I can't quite remember which, before Uncyc was even on the scene. —rc (t) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't invent Russian reversal or Captain Obvious either. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also true, and as far as I know we haven't done anything new with them. We should probably remove entries like that. Stuff like the Kanye/Ballmer quotes should probably stay because they do comprise a little slice of Uncyc history, but really, do we want a bunch of entries that are nothing other than memes appropriated from other sites? —rc (t) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea: Two questions to be asked about each in-joke on the list. The first question is "Was this in-joke created on Uncyclopedia?" If the answer is yes, we keep the in-joke. If not, then we go to the second question: "Did Uncyclopedia do anything big and new with this?" If the answer is yes, we keep it, and if not, we remove it. Sound good? Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

I slightly disagree with the second one. Although we didn't do anything different to Russian Reversal, historically we have associated it with Uncyclopedia. I guess you could call it an "adopted joke". Of course, there is also the question of Wheely Willy, which is also listed. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 11:56, Jan. 2, 2008

My sojourn

Those should be added. A wizard did it should be added to. -- 02:41, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oh and zork too! -- 02:45, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap zork is already in there. -- 00:37, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I already added it at some point in the past, but then I realized its placement would be an invite for noobs to create thousands more of those spin-offs. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 04:30, Jan. 11, 2011

But what about Captain Obvious? That's in there. And seeing all the spin-offs of that might invite noobs to come and make a whole bunch more "captain" articles (not to mention place a Captain Obvious quote on every fucking page). -- 04:47, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen "Captain ____" spam is easier to keep under control. I've yet to see a My sojourn article on VFD. I dunno. Maybe if we reference My sojourn on HTBFANJS among the list of "We don't want to see your versions of...", like Captain _____, Darth ____, or another Jesii. I dunno. This needs some debate. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 07:41, Jan. 11, 2011

I see your point, but this is supposed to be a list of all the in-jokes, right? But what good is it it doesn't do that? And besides, if the my sojourn articles and the A wizard did it articles were important enough for uncyclopedia to make and sell shirts about them, then I think they're important enough to be in this list. -- 18:47, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

You persuaded me. I re-added my sojourn. I suppose if too many unamusing spin-offs get created, we could just do some Spring cleaning. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 18:55, Jan. 11, 2011

Does that mean I can put a wizard did it in there too? -- 19:05, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

What am I, the in-joke magistrate? Yeah, go ahead. Here's Wikipedia's info. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 20:30, Jan. 11, 2011

COWBELL!!!

I am totally disappointed that the In-jokes page failed to explain the use of "*COWBELL!*" (and a later "*COWBELL!!!!!!*") in the article, Oodles. I mean, it looks like it is related to "*SQUIRREL!*". I totally understand how *SQUIRREL!* is used, but I've been un-*SQUIRREL!!!!* unable to find any reference for how or why to use *COWBELL!!!!!!*.

Come on-*SQUIRREL!!!!*... Come on, guys! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.47.189.248 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing out! Anton (talk) 12:22, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

But, wait, there is no more Cowbell in the Cowbell article. So the page should not explain it!

This article needs more cowbell. You can help by adding more cowbell.

This article needs more cowbell. You can help by adding more cowbell.

This article needs more cowbell. You can help by adding more cowbell.

Anton (talk) 12:29, March 8, 2014 (UTC)