Talk:Leet/Archive 5

message: Wtf? WoW can't make custom maps. Maybe it reffers to Wc3 or Wc2? 124.187.26.57 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think they were talking about Warcraft 2. see pwn. Cliff smith 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WoW Custom Map Maker

message: My leet tool link got deleted, even though it was better than the other one. :[ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.107.230.9 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riiiiggghhhht...  what's a leet translator?  --Luigifan 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It converts lots of text between lamer speak and leet - http://h4c.us/tools/1337.php 216.107.230.9 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link is broken is apparently why it was deleted. In any case, these tools are nice, but you need to keep in mind the nature of Leet is such that it's difficult to actually do "translations"; they generally just convert between known character substitutions and what is generally accepted to be the result- if anything this should be called a transliterator. You know, one of these days I'm gonna write a program that implements machine learning to do this. Mendaliv 05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leet Translator 

message: I just found a new reference which can be used here. It should be able to improve the article. Cliff smith 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what is it? bibliomaniac15 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's Anthony Mitchell's A Leet Primer. Cliff smith 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm liking what I see. bibliomaniac15 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was good too. As you can see, I've used it to verify some of the key points. Also, there are a couple refs here and there from other related articles which can be utilised here, at least to some extent (like the two for LOL). Cliff smith 02:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, I think that the problem was that most of the stuff here was always attributable to the references, but they were just never properly cited, which is what I aim to do. Cliff smith 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just completed what I set out to do, as mentioned above. Some of the refs were improperly formatted with the cite templates, so I fixed those. There were a couple refs that, upon examination, had just about zero significance to the subject, so I removed those. And I checked out each ref and added inline citations where appropriate. Cliff smith 07:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a bad reference. Have a look at this paper  though, look for the section that talks about leetspeak in particular. Pretty interesting, though I'm more into it fro the classification stuff. Also look at this - I've only read his abstract so far but it sounds like it should be useful (though annoying to sort through- 89 pages... and I know what a pain working with someone's thesis can be). Google Scholar is awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mendaliv (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Doh... anywho, I was gonna say also that if you find any articles that you can't get the full text of, let me know and I can see if my University has access to it (n.b., not that I'm going to send you a copy and thus probably violate copyright law- I plan to read through it myself and apply citations in such cases).Mendaliv 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. More refs are always good. Cliff smith 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading through this one, your second suggestion, and it looks like this is a great source of info. I'll begin applying citations where appropriate.Cliff smith 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On validity 

message: This section was pretty clearly focused on morphological processes instead of phonological processes- both -xor and -age are examples of derivational suffixation. Although -ed→-'d is actually a phonological process, it's alone in the section; -and→& is an orthographic simplification or obfuscation.
In the -xor subsection itself, I deleted a lot of unrelated and unsupported data (here I define "unsupported" as "being without a supporting use which is clearly grammatical to speakers of Leet"). The supposed "superlative" suffixes were removed for this reason. The specific statement about -zor was moved up and explained as a form of morphophonemic alternation. The case of -ri, which I suspect to be an emphatic particle or morpheme of some kind. It could also be a phonological process required for attaching -age to the end of -xor in the given example, which didn't match the pattern given in the first place (I am the suxorixorage). The suffix -izzle was removed as it's a recognized suffix of colloquial English and not unique to or possibly not even a part of Leet.
Mendaliv 07:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The info about the -xor suffix is great. Cliff smith 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Teach me not to log in... gah. Mendaliv 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology → Morphology and the ''-xor'' suffix 

message: On the near future of this article, I think that once the things about "Internet Social Corpus" and Vocabulary have been addressed, we should open a peer review. Once the peer review—which would probably be around a fortnight to a month in length—ends, we can check the article against the FA criteria in preparation for FAC. As of now, these are the only things I think that may need attention:
*1c—"Factually accurate"; I think we have enough refs, but you never can tell.
*3—"...images where they are appropriate to the subject..."; I wonder if this is an absolute, since I'm not certain what proper pictures we'd include.
*4—"...of appropriate length..."; if there's any question about its length, that would probably be satisfied when some vocab stuff is moved.
But beyond those things, this is looking very good. Cliff smith 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the length is a real issue with this page, which is presently 34KB. Cliff smith 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If I may suggest, with regards to item 3, we can refer to other language articles for examples- Chinese language has a picture of various forms of calligraphy used in the language. I suggest that we can go in this same vein with respect to Leet, that is, we get a picture of Leet being used "in context". This would most likely be a screenshot of Leet text in an IRC room or in an online game, especially of text that would strike the uninitiated as unreadable. This would hopefully not just be one capitalizing on the changes in orthography; I think this feature of Leet is what makes people feel that it's just a joke, and leads them to ignore the true linguistic validity of Leet, either as an argot or even pidgin in the making. Mendaliv 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. Such a picture would probably go in "Grammar" or "Vocabulary" I would think. Cliff smith 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Even though this article has yet to make GA, it's been tagged an A-Class by the WP assesment team, so what rating is this article? Cliff smith 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no one rating. Each project assesses their own rating based on their criteria—which is typically about the same—but any two people may have differing views of the quality of the article and thus rate it differently. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 14:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assesment class 

message: If it's often 1337, then why even put that horrible word "leet" in it? Seems pathedic..Change it, would you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.232.82 (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you say "leet, often 1337 or 13375p34k"? 

message: I miss words from the dl/demo scene like leecher and lamer.
:We should be doing a separate article on some Leet vocab one of these days. It's a real pain in the neck to give the article general enough when you have to include a lot of terms. Once we have a good vocab article though, we should be able to pick and choose those that are really important to include. :) Mendaliv 06:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vocabulary 

message: Looking over the article, I have decided to fail this GA. I think that it could be a Good Article, but the text as it stands is not up to current standards.
Here are some notes:
# The lead doesn't seem consistent with WP:LEAD. The second paragraph presents new information, rather than being a concise summary of the article as a whole. 
# Because of the fannish nature of the material, you need to be doubly-careful with citations. The history section has a number of claims which aren't cited, as do many other sections. "Leet has since entered the mainstream." - says who? "It is also sometimes used as a nonsense script language." - by whom? While you may know these things to be true from personal experience, right now this reads like original research.
# You need citations for your chart in "Orthography". Again, this seems to be from your personal experience rather than because an academic or otherwise trust-worthy source on Leet wrote up this guide.
# Ditto with many uncited points in "Morphology" and "Grammar"
# No citation at all in "Rhyming and rhythm"
# Similar WP:NOR questions in the remaining sections. Sorry that I don't go into them.
# Fix up citation #24 (make it refer to a specific search you performed with a "retrieved on" date)
# Consider finding an image or illustration
# Some additional comment to criticism of Leet, to make the article less one-sided.
Here's the GAList:
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  
So, while I don't doubt that your article is factually accurate, you need to go a ways before you'll dispel the cloud of original research. But, once you have citations for everything, I think you're quite close to GA. JRP 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I noticed that there is a link to the programming language 1337, and that it is redirected to the main article. Is there it a real programming language? If so than it should have an article, and if not I think the redundant link should be dropped. Kage-Lupus 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a separate article at some point, but is now apparently a redirect. I did a Google search on "l33t programming language" and it does not come up with text from this article (Leet), so I'm not exactly sure what took place. For now, the link will be removed. If a reference cannot be found for it, it will likely be removed. Cliff smith 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a Google Directory page with info on various comupter programming languages, and one of them is the l33t programming language, so hopefully that page should be a sufficient ref. Cliff smith 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy