Talk:Lolcat/Archive 1

message: Might want to merge LOLCode into this or make LOLCode a good bit better. -- Archeus 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "python" is mentioned, not the pthyon programming language. Your suggestion has merit, but we have no obligation to accommodate the location of information about LOLCODE in the Lolcat article, when enough sources exist for the former. GracenotesT § 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LOLCODE

message: I suggest this page be moved to Cat Macro or LOLcat. Kittah just doesn't cut it, and lolcat gets more google results.
--General Miaow Say Hello! 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this has become a fairly popular and prevalent activity over the last few months...if it was just a flash-in-the-pan thing, there probably wouldn't be as many websites dedicated to it.  It's a fad, to be sure, but I say leave it alone for now. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i started an Afd thingy. You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. --Wedge 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: wtf. photos of cats, with grammatically erroneous text... "popularized" by the pedophilic messageboard, you believe this is encyclopedic material because... why? so you can be "in" on the "joke"? because web-loggers have discussed it? perhaps wikipedia could simply mirror every stupid half-retarded thing that gets posted at. and then hey, maybe "bloggers" will start talking about {whatever stupid/cutesy thing}, and wikipedia could cite them for talking about that. omg yes, "lolcats" is so very important, meaningful, and noteworthy... surely it deserves to be preserved forever in the annals of human internet knowledge!  --Wedge 01:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no more or less worthy than many other internet memes.  It's sourced, it's documented, it survived the AfD process, it's in.  "Calm down, have some dip." Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen Caturday show up in newspapers. Of course, that was on 4chan, so I don't have a link, but cat macros have become popular enough to warrant an article.GravyFish 03:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: I'M IN UR X Ying your Z: likely started from a Counterstrike screen capture.
That comment is totally wrong, this was based off Starcraft, which one person would be in the enemy base and would joke, "I'm in ur base, killing ur doods". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.20.148 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in ur comment, fixin ur bold tags 142.59.172.187 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is generally considered one of the earliest uses, a screenshot of the Red Alert 2 beta (identifiable due to distinct pre-release graphics) tagged with the image macro, "I am in your base killing your d00ds". It's also notable for the sentence being grammatically and syntactically correct until the very last word, indicating its age even more - it had yet to be exposed to internet slang, corrupting it into the distinct "im in ur X, Ying ur Z" (im in ur base, killin ur d00dz) format. However, that image is from a blog and I know that's not a verifiable source, but the facts can be obtained from the image. Encyclopedia Dramatica also has an article on it (search "I_am_in_your_base_killing_your_d00ds" over on ED if you're that curious). Not Starcraft, not Counter-Strike, Red Alert 2. AFAIK. BobisOnlyBob 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: Stuff goes here.  Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing there that needed merging, as "caturday" is already mentioned here. Redirected Caturday to Lolcat. —ptk✰fgs 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short and sweet, I like it. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 02:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal - Merge from [[Caturday]]

message: This source may be useful for supplementing or replacing one of our existing sources: http://www.charlotte.com/171/story/123446.html —ptk✰fgs 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like this article from the Houston Chronicle. It's already been used as a reference here. WarpstarRider 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Caturday isn't Saturday. Caturday refers to the fact that every day is Saturday for cats, because they don't have a working week. Often cats will get into mischief on Caturday (ie every day) Which is why it's common to see a cat photo of a cat misbehaving or doing something destructive and be captioned "But it's Caturday"
I think we'd all like it to be Caturday  --smadge1 11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caturday 

message: The LOL* meme has spread far beyond cats - http://laughingsquid.com/roll-your-own-lol-not-just-for-cats-anymore/  - star trek, geeks, burning man, code, robots, rocky horror, porn, LOST, NIN, science, librarians etc. What should we do, add a section on derivatives?
:I've tried to initiate a discussion below about whether there there should be any mention of derivatives, let alone a section. GracenotesT § 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lol* 

message: I'm uncertain about this, so I haven't put it in the article; but isn't "It's a trap" said by Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi?  Is that the true origin of this meme?  Fëaluinix 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear that phrase...I don't know of any other pop culture item where it occurs off the top of my head. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that the Star Wars movie is the source, and cannot think of another possible one. It's impossible to attribute that meme, but there's at least half a chance of verifing it. (Although, I am a fan of the "tarp" variation). GracenotesT § 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its my understanding that that particular meme emerged from Something Awful. Perhaps somebody who is foolish enough to pay for access there can confirm. Snarfies 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a Trap 

message: To draw attention to this diff: is the removal needed? I think that we should have a rough criteria for inclusion in that list, or else it may become indiscriminate—lolcode is related enough to merit a mention. WP:NOT#PAPER might apply here as well? GracenotesT § 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of info 

message: Why in the merry hell does LOLCode (an esoteric programming language) redirect to a page about funny pictures of cats? I mean I know the lolcat image macro was the basis of the joke in LOLCode, but this page doesn't even make reference to it! LOLCode is a large enough topic for a page in it's own right, isn't it? Patch86 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Talk:Lolcode and note your concerns there, hopefully pointing to verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. MrZaiustalk 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOLCode?! 

message: There are occasionally a few reasons for making an article a redirect without discussion and consensus, but I don't see any of them here. After a difficult start, the article is certainly encyclopedic at present, and well-cited to multiple reliable sources, including Slate, the Houston Chronicle, Wired, and two academic sources. It has also survived an AfD. Like a large number of other articles, it tends to attract inapproriate links (most of them merely not useful, rather than being self-promotional or spam); that's not a reason to (in effect) delete it. If you feel you have a strong case for redirection, make it here. Thanks, --MCB 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, speaking as an outside participant (my only contribution to this article was the reversion of a merge tag removal that I don't even remember doing) this is effectively a deletion as far as I can see. There really isn't much information specifically about lolcats in the image macro page and what was here was heavily referenced. There should be some discussion about redirection first. Bryan Derksen 05:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this article is fine, I don't know why someone wants to convert it to redirect.  It's just a matter of eliminating linkspam. --George100 09:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If there's going to be a revert war over this I'm going to protect the article. I'd suggest that the pro-redirection folks actually participate in this talk page discussion. Bryan Derksen 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that that would be a positive step. JavaTenor 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only reverted the un-redirection as it was reverted (if you can't understand that, check the history) by a suspected single-purpose account with no edit summary or discussion. In my opinion this article is best merged into Image macro but I suppose that needs to go through process. Thanks to whoever cited the notability/inclusion of the EL, I saw no outside links to anything but cheezburger in the articles but I suppose I was mistaken. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware that the content of ED was meant to have any effect as to what we did on wikipedia.Geni 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. However, we are not an indiscriminate list of information such as listing appropriate fonts, speculation on grammar forms and relation to existing language, and other nonsense that while citable isn't necessarily encyclopedic. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't matter when the AfD was so overwhelmingly in favour of this article existing.  violet/riga (t) 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD was loaded with massive amounts of meatpuppets and the vast majority of the legitimate arguments were for the existence of the term and its notability, not that it deserves a separate article. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was clearly to keep the article and not to merge it.  Take away all the unacceptable votes and you will still have the same result.  violet/riga (t) 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The argument was that this term has enough notability to stand as its own article, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.  Personally, I find the lolcat phenomenon to be even greater than O Rly?.  Image macros have been around for a while.  So have pidgin languages.  The lolcat thing has incorporated both, and exceeded both, by going mainstream.  This meme has surpassed its origins such that a two or three line mention in image macro doesn't adequately cover the topic.  IMO, it belongs as its own article.  Like most wikipedia articles, however, it could benifit from a little cleanup. Resolute 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Process? Fuck process, we should simply be bold." All that I can read out of this is "Fuck the people who disagree with me." Bizarre. --MichaelLinnear 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bold-revert-discuss is an effective process, but it's not carte blanche to continue reverting in the face of opposition. Right up top at number 2. it says "DO NOT Revert back!" —dgiestc 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdent) I think our time would be better spent improving this article than continuing to complain about how the redirect was handled.  Productive action will forestall any further controversy. Resolute 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection? 

message: There is nothing here that cannot be elaborated upon at Image macro. This article covers about three memes that I can see: "INVISIBLE BICYCLE", "IM IN UR X Y-ING UR Z", and just silly pictures of cats with words written over it. This singular meme does not beget encyclopedic coverage, despite "serious" coverage in newspapers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick note - Popped off your merge template before seeing this comment, as its discuss link was aimed at the target page. If you repost it, you may want to move this talk there, although it seems more reasonable to discuss it here before reposting the proposed merge template. Personally, considering that daughter phenomena like lolcode have sprung directly off of this one and the number of citations that refer to the meme as lolcat and not an image macro, it seems more reasonable to maintain seperate coverage here. MrZaiustalk 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should it be elaborated on there? This page is about a specific and highly notable Internet meme and its particular features regarding use of language. The grammar material definitely does not fit there; it does fit here. Vadder 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The source here  says that "the phenomenon of funny cat pictures began on one particular web image board. I’m not going to give the name of the board as it’s an board where people can post anonymously, so there’s frequently content there I don’t want to endorse." Now, I know for a fact this "particular web image board" refers to the /b/ board on 4chan. Anyone who frequents that board will know that this is the case. However because the author unfortunately hasn't given the name, we can't use it as a source to mention the 4chan origin of this tradition. So does anyone have a site, similar to this one, that *does* explicitly mention 4chan? --Krsont 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just a blogger - Hit him up to post a little update to the page and explicitly specify the "one particular image board."  He's not all that likely to turn you down. Not every day some recreational etymologist's blog gets the coverage we're giving it here. MrZaiustalk 11:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've emailed him for clarification. Does an email count as a source? Will he need to post it as a blog? --Krsont 11:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither are reliable sources and should not really be used. If you can find a media source for it, then go ahead. ViridaeTalk 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the blog is not a reliable source, why is it already sourced in this article in the first place? --Krsont 12:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it IS there, doesn't mean it should be. See . ViridaeTalk 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  referencing 4chan 

message: You know this is in fact a 4chan meme, right?
It has been used by 4chan users for a very long time, but a lot of sites have claimed hat they invented these image macros.
So, for all you out there that are claiming it; FUN IGGERS LOLOLOL
There should at least be some reference to 4chan.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollen (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 July 2007
: Mentioned at image macro. It's not like 4chan is a particularly obscure site that we hadn't heard of. Chris Cunningham 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hay guise 

message: Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I find your Caturday stuff interesting as I am a cat lover too and will look at it in more detail later. Cheers Samantha of Cardyke 15:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: Once the source for this is found, it shall be added. –Pomte 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642897,00.html - Google, baby. MrZaiustalk 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine article 

message: Is it advisable to create a new heading with references to popular culture uses of the Lolcats "phenom". 
For example, the popular webcomic "Achewood" has a current storyline that parodies Lolcats. 
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07172007
Calydon 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no.  Wikipedia frowns on trivia, and that is pretty much all that ...in popular culture sections and articles are. Resolute 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Popular Culture References to Lolcats 

message: Just for the record, this is where I'm getting the post-delete notion that lolcode is best covered here: . Haven't hunted down the deletion review yet, but note that in the initial AfD for lolcode (found here), roughly half of the users calling for "delete" also called for a merge here, or, as I stated myself in that debate "cursory mention" here.  Considering that the lolcode coverage is only lengthy enough to cover the link between the topics and contain a small clip of syntax that illustrates points made elsewhere in the article, and, above all else, considering that it has gained major media coverage, I really don't see why we shouldn't retain the current lolcode section. MrZaiustalk 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_12.  Looks like it was closed with deletion endorsed, but there seem to be a fair number of admins preserving the redirect nonetheless.  Not exactly clear cut, although, of course, deletion of lolcode in no way prohibits its coverage here, as I understand it. MrZaiustalk 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lolcode

message: The artist Adam Koford has created a fictionalised "history" of the lolcat which started out as "The Laugh-Out-Loud Cats" in a cartoon series drawn by his grandfather in 1912-1913. Is there a place for this in the article? The images (see below for link) are clearly inspired by the lolcat meme and encompass several other internet memes. Unfortunately the licence is non-commercial and not compatible with Wikipedia so uploading one of the images would not be possible.
External Links:
*the images on flickr
*tha artist's blog
-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the apelad's nonsense section below. A couple of sentences worked just fine in the history section, flow-wise, but the sources didn't hold water. Give us a print or otherwise Wikipedia:Reliable source, and I'll gladly pop it back in. MrZaiustalk 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Laugh-Out-Loud Cats 

message: If we can get a source to back up one pronunciation over the other, please feel free to introduce back the use of "an" before lolcat and explain it in the article, but, barring a source, it seems safer to just stick with the assumption that it's pronounced phonetically. Doesn't really seem likely that there will be any sort of authoritative source, given our lack of knowledge about who coined the term and given its changing nature/growing frequency/spread into mainstream culture/lack of audio media, aside from a handful of latecomers. MrZaiustalk 12:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you threatening to edit war over this? ViridaeTalk 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm stating a fact. People reverting based on their opinion of something causes a lot of extremely lame edit wars --Lie! 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit waring requires you to revert to your version, which was entirely YOUR opinion in the first place. Until there is solid evidence for one way of pronunciation or the other, how about we leave it was. ViridaeTalk 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying that reverting edits you don't like BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME OPINION AS YOU LEADS TO A LOT OF EDIT WARS, AND NOT TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE. THAT SIMPLE! Anyway, there is plenty of solid evidence in favor of promoting El Oh El, mainly the fact that IT IS AN ACRONYM. I removed a/an entirely, since it's not really needed anyway, and it's just going to cause fights --Lie! 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All reliable sources that I can find that use an indefinite article before "lolcat" use "a," not "an." See  and  for examples. We're not supposed to be speculating on usage, as that would be original research; if reliable sources use "a," we should be using "a." Krimpet 14:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aie - All I was saying was that if you contest the points that Krimpet made, please do so in the article proper and with sources instead of just the edit summary. MrZaiustalk 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I do agree that we're better off avoiding controversy all around - It is quite simple to see where both sides of the above are coming from, with regards to the proper punctuation of the term. We don't, and probably can't, have any authoritative sources to back up one pronunciation over the other; just the implicit guide given by our sources' use of "a" over "an." We only use(d) the indefinite article before lolcat in one place in the article: the first few words of the LEAD. We're better off without them and all the associated tweaks, given the ease with which they can be avoided. On an unrelated note, at least five of our sources use the capitalized "Lolcat" at the beginning of a sentence, and every sentence in this article that began with the word did the same. The lowercase template is unwarranted without an explanation, and, again, I doubt one can be found without someone laying claim to having coined the term. The only really appropriate use of the lowercase template are those special cases where folks coin proper nouns that should always be lowercase regardless of where they are used, ala xine. MrZaiustalk 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Instead of starting a revert war, I want to ask:
Is tracing the lolcat's origins back to 1912 "nonsense"? I feel that it is relevant to the article. Ivansanchez 10:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Longing.... 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dammit, didn't realize that it was a (clever) hoax. My apologies. Ivansanchez 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's alright, at least it's a funny hoax. Could be worse. For future reference, read through WP:RS. This sort of stuff is why we don't trust blogs. And generally anything on april 1st --Longing.... 11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Bullshit is not appropriate for Wikipedia". LOL. Meowy 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apelad's nonsense?

message: The article says to discuss on the talk page before adding additional links, so here are a couple of proposed links to add:
* Lolcat Language Translator
*  The lolcat Bible: wiki project to translate the Bible into lolcat
--Modemac 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were they not mentioned in third party news sources, most of the external links currently in the article would be good candidates for removal under WP:EL - the Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information/a linkfarm/somethin' built to promote commercial sites. Of the links above, one, Katurday, is ad supported and just a collection of lolcat images, and the other two, while interesting are not directly mentioned or directly related to anything discussed in the article proper. That said, all of those and the links that we currently list would be great candidates for a DMOZ/open directory submission. Hit them up to create a lolcat category and link to all of them, if they haven't already. MrZaiustalk 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree that Wikipedia is not a link farm, I would also suggest that if we are excluding links on the criteria that they commercial promotions or are ad-supported, then the ICanHasCheeseburger, Macrocats, and LOLCats sites (which are currently included in External Links) should be the first to go, since these sites are entirely based on advertisement revenue. On the ICanHasCheeseburger homepage, I counted at least 16 seperate ad banners on the main page alone.  Such sites have many more ads displayed than sites such as Katurday.com, which in comparison, is quite clean and has only a single ad-space, is dedicated solely to the posting of LOLCat images, and is therefore arguably quite relevant. --Phoric 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding that WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided suggests that Blogs (#11) would not fit the criteria for external links, nor would a site with 'objectionable amounts of advertising' (#5), both of which would include ICanHasCheeseburger (which is both a blog and heavily laden with ads), but not Katurday.com. As in my previous comments above, ICanHasCheeseburger has numerous amounts of ads and no doubt benefits monetarily from being listed in the wiki. --Phoric 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup - As I said, if those three sites weren't explicitly and repeatedly mentioned in the press sources, they'd probably get popped off. As they are, however, their relevance increases substantially to something tantamount to an "official site". Note that the Katurday site is still hosting ads, albeit not as many as some of the others. Furthermore, barring press coverage or any other sort of independent confirmation of its noteworthiness, it's still not a great candidate to be added. I'd be surprised to see anything added to here other than the official sites for noteworthy, press-winning daughter memes, or a link to DMOZ if they create a lolcat/caturday category. I went ahead and sent the DMOZ submission for the lot of 'em - might show up before too long. MrZaiustalk 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New External Link Proposals

message: There are a lot of untrue and misguided things in this article due to bad sourcing. Lolcats is not "image macros combining photographs of a cat with a humorous and idiosyncratic caption". Lolcats is a website owned by some guy that started collecting image macros, and then began getting a lot of traffic. The news articles and blog posts are a load of creative journalism. Many of the journalists have no idea what they are talking about, caturday comes from 4chan, everyone else is just piggybacking.Ninja337 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the origin, "lolcat" has become synonymous with cat macros.  The origin of the term does not change the fact that it is what the meme is known as to the public at large. Resolute 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any source that backs that claim up.Ninja337 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hueg problems in Accuracy

message: A post by user "Mofaha" on the b3ta.com imageboard in October 2004 utilised this trope . Are there any older references? --Krsont 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, saying "the oldest thing we could find was xxx" is WP:OR --Lucid 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of bad grammar/poor spelling associated with cats