Talk:Lolcat/Archive 2

message: Hai. I has a  Deleshun review. It has gained teh reliabal surces. I thot u might want to know. Kthxbye --Lucid 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article at LOLCODE has now been restored. It could use a little bit of work and an extra source or two, but it's starting to catch up. Anyone interested in helping out? MrZaiustalk 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolcode DRV opened 

message: More of the same:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/cat_25284___article.html/sites_web.html
ICanHasCheezburger-specific articles covering the financial side of the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21online.html?ex=1187668800&en=b63b5b4971bececb&ei=5070
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070713_202390.htm
MrZaiustalk 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118798557326508182.html JavaTenor 17:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WSJ article cites a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reference for "I'm in your base killing your d00ds." But ED was banned from Wikipedia in MONGO's arbitration. Does this have any bearing as to whether the WSJ is an acceptable source for this article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't think so. It looks like the WSJ linked to the first Google result of "I'm in your base killing your d00ds" just to provide some sort of context for the in-joke. The WSJ is an acceptable source based on its journalistic excellence and reliability. (And banned-by-association chains are impractical.) GracenotesT § 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future sources

message: :Does anyone realize that the guy chairing these discussion's name is 'PTKFGS', Punch The Keys For God's Sake, The sean connery phrase that is essentially the calling card of YTMND? I don't find it unbiased in the least bit that a ptkfgsytmndfag is keeping the nail in the coffin on the renaiming of this article, since 4chan and ytmnd have been at odds with eachother since the dawn of time. Everyone here can tell you this 'lolcats' phenom was born, and continues on, 4chan.org. Requesting citations to this effect is completely futile due to the fact that it is a DYNAMIC CONTENT site with no authoritative source of information on its memes besides ED (which is done on purpose to keep 4chan a small, largely incomprehensible community to gaiafags and the like.
:By the same token, there are few if any valid citations supporting the name lolcats, and any that do exist are rather half-baked. 4chan.org as a member of the imageboard/meme factory community, is by far the most well publicised and in recent times, garners the most fame. Its image-macros have a very unique style in text, font, size, spelling conventions, color, placement, and general theme. People just don't realize that 90% of the 'funny images' they download from 3rd party sites like icanhascheezburger or funnyimages.com were, in fact, products of 4chan. I believe that since nearly every caturday image referenced on these humor farming sites features the distinct mark of 4chan imagemacro tools, we can safely attribute them to the aforementioned cache of users. 
:The bottom line is, ptkfgs presents a conflict of interest in editing and/or managing the content of this article, due to the fact that 4chan, YTMND, SomethingAwful, et al are involved in a known troll war, and someone with a wiki identity of THE prominent meme of any one of these sites is more than a coincidence. If he is not a pro-YTMNDtrollfag, he is certainly slanted in the direction of said site, and his/her arguments in favor of 'lolcats' are basically rooted in heresay and circumstantial evidence, while the body of evidence supporting these as original 4chan memes is overwhelming.
:Please, if anyone else knows of an entire community which uses this font, typeset, size, color, style, and purposeful, unique, consistent grammatical errors EXCLUSIVELY, let me know. Not every piece of information is citable, however, I believe given the undeniable origins of the image macro 'fingerprints', it is more than appropriate to attribute the name to original or common knowledge. Go google PTKFGS, tell me the results on the first ENTIRE PAGE don't represent some sort of NPOV issue with this guy's username.
214.13.141.100 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another suggestion, google Caturday, and note the same trend in results, only obviously attributable in nearly every mention of the word, to 4chan.
214.13.141.100 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that Wikipedia strongly requests that users assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.  There are several users on these talk pages who are unrelated to 4chan, Something Awful, TYMND, etc, who are arguing against a rename of the article as well.  When Time Magazine, as one example, writes about "Caturday" rather than "lolcats", then there might be more of an argument.  The world beyond 4chan knows of this meme as "lolcats", and that is what Wikipedia considers most important. Resolute 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked Time Magazine isn't the expert on all web phenomena. I'd like to see some reputable source that these cat macros are indeed "lolcats", besides some cheap American news magazines. Maybe some copyrights Ninja337 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, /b/ and thus Caturday has gained popularity outside of North America, more so than "lolcats" has, so Caturday has more international usage, which wikipedia aims for. If you compare lolcats and Caturday in Swedish google, Caturday has around 400 more results.Ninja337 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swedish Wikipedia is that way ←. We go by what the reliable sources use to describe them, which is lolcats. The only RS I see that mentions caturday CALLS THE IMAGE MACROS THEMSELVES LOLCATS, and only mentioned Caturday AS A PLACE WHERE THEY SHOWED UP. Calling it Caturday is WP:OR which goes against a number of policies and guidelines. Feel free to make a section on Caturday if you can provide WP:RS from a WP:NPOV, but renaming the article Caturday is not an option --lucid 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal attacks, but facts are facts. Trolls exist, and when dealing with the chan communities they're quite intelligent, crafty, and tactful. This sort of thing is the perfect crime to a ytmnd/sa user. In cases like this it's simply a matter of which faction member holds more clout on WP. Lets simplify this and say that these are obvious 4chan imagemacros (for the font and style reasons above) and that 4chan created the vast majority of them, and that 4chan refers to it as Caturday and not by some absurd attempt at a 'web 2.0' catchphrase. 'It's caturday! Post some ******* cats!' That's it, no lolcats ever. Since the word 'cats' is obviously not going to direct here, I believe caturday as the name of the phenom is apropriate. I don't believe what OTHER PEOPLE call something is a valid point, seeing as the people who created them themselves call them something else. Van Gogh painted 'Scream' and called it 'Scream', if some art critics from NYT and WSJ started calling it 'Yell', the name of the piece does not change to 'Yell', no matter how reuptable the source is. I think it's easy to see this is a meme that originated on 4chan through imagemacros, where the user community came to call it caturday, and the images themsevles simply cats. You dont see anyone saying 'Its caturday, post some ******* lolcats!' 214.13.142.178 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop putting your signature on an extra line, it's extremely annoying. And yes, Wikipedia does go by the common name sources use, not the correct name. We don't have anything but a redirect at Liberty Enlightening the World, and especially if we didn't even have a reliable source that calls it that we wouldn't mention it, as we don't here. Your comments are entirely advocating WP:OR, which is unacceptable. --lucid 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If they did, that'd be two sources while the vast majority of the others, as previously stated, refer to it as lolcat. What we'd do in that case is deal with it the same way that we do caturday in the lead, or, if it got complicated enough, an etymology section. See the manual of style pages referred to every time this same argument is brought up. MrZaiustalk 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we have to rename the article, a VFD is fine too. The fact is, there are no reliable sources that say these cat macros are called "lolcats". The only sources we have in the article are novelty news articles written by ill-informed American journalists who lack research.  Ninja337 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but on Wikipedia, we consider sources like Time, major daily newspapers, books, etc., to be reliable, and unedited/unvetted Internet forums like 4chan, YTMND, blogs, personal pages, and the like not to be reliable. That's policy, and if you believe that it somehow does not serve the needs of Wikipedia, there are various places to bring that up and discuss it. However, asserting that for this one article we should ignore WP:RS and WP:OR and discard reliable sources in favor of informal Internet sources is not really an option. --MCB 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I'll make changes in the article to reflect that then.Ninja337 02:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: ptk fgs 

message: I thought it was proclaimed that 'everyday shall be caturday' in the rules of the internet. -Anonymous --68.9.193.246 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is.  If you can't tell, basically wikipedia hates Anon, along with YTMND, SA, the GNAA (18 AFD! W00T!) and the rest of us.  They are being lulzkillers and using citation to kill Caturday, despite "lolcats" being a marketing term.  Just like The Game, we just need someone to say it on TV or write some article on it in a major newspaper, and Wiki will be forced to accept us. -Anonymous 68.1.79.246 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page makes mention of Caturday, but, again, the predominate term (be it overly commercial or not), especially when it's the only one that can be reliably sourced as a title for the overarching phenomenon, should be reflected in the page title. It's common sense, not a conspiracy theory. MrZaiustalk 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What reliable sources Ninja337 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The print newspaper sources that refer to the phenomenon w/"lolcat" and only make passing reference to caturday as an event where the pictures are posted. No reliable sources suggest that caturday A: Preceded the term lolcat, or B: Is an appropriate label for the overarching phenomenon. MrZaiustalk 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't 4chan. --Carnildo 18:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, given some sort of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, there would be absolutely no issue with covering caturday in 4chan, discussing the origins of the phenomenon here, etc. Would be quite desirable to flesh things out, given the availability of strong sources. MrZaiustalk 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone interested in discussing the ramifications of this caturday versus lolcats issue in a more abstract way? And if so, should it be done here? Nobody who really knows the subject would deny that the origin of these cat memes originated in caturday threads on the 4chan image board. However, do to the nature of 4chan (whose threads rarely last an hour, far less a day, day and are then lost forever) and Wikipedia rules and dogma regarding citations and sources, it would appear to be completely impossible to present on Wikipedia a factual account of the origin of this internet phenomenon. And the problem may be worse than that - in this entry wikipedia is in a real sense creating its own false reality which will then, when disseminated into the wider world, replace the real reality and become the accepted truth (which can then become re-referrenced in the wikipedia article reinforcing the new reality even more). Although cat photos with funny captions are a trivial subject, what is there to stop the same process happening to much more important subjects? Meowy 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I should have written the start of the first sentence better, it should have said "Anyone who knows about the subject..." The above editor, by placing the word factual in inverted commas clearly does not know the subject. MrZaius, I don't think there is anything useful you could contribute to the specific discussion I have sugested having. The actual subject of my comments, the troubling implications of having a difference between "Wikipedia truth" and "real truth", seems to be lost on you. Maybe here is not the place to have an indepth exploration of those implications, but neither is the wikiality entry, where the influences and failings of Wikipedia as treated as just a joke. Meowy 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB, the domain name caturday.com was registered in April 2005, and caturday.org was registered in October 2005. Evidence enough that "caturday" preceeds "lolcat". Meowy 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And longcat.com was registered in April 1998! Meowy 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a caturday article. We need a smoldering wikicrater where the lolcat article is now, and one less lolcats.com on the internet. Ninja337 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Being a tertiary source, Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources as references, not primary sources.  Also, message boards are not considered reliable sources, so 4chan's forums cannot be used as a reference.  If a reliable secondary soruce states that the meme started at 4chan, then we have something to work with.  Even if we can logically assume that it did originate at 4chan, Wikipedia puts focus on verifiability, not truth.  We need a valid source. Resolute 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4chanarchive is technically a secondary source though. It merely archives the original thread that existed on 4chan. It does not alter the original content in any manner. In fact, a quick search for caturday reveals this page: http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=17033053&x=Caturday. The fifth post has a rather interesting picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.57.209 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is still a primary source.  It is simply a copy of the original content.  A secondary source uses the primary source to write about the topic.  And, as mentioned, message/image boards are not reliable sources anyway. Resolute 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, there's a picture of the 'I can has cheezburger?' cat sitting right there, with a date attached to the post that declares it was posted in december 2006. Doesn't wikipedia use any primary sources at all?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.57.209 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturdays, or 'Caturdays'. 

message: While I realise that WP is not supposed to be a link collection, I do feel there's a need for more relevant links to the cream of the crop regarding lolcats sites. As the WP article is ranked 3rd on Google when searching for "lolcats", a lot of people will come here to find some quality links, rather than browse through the abundance of trash sites every 11-year old and his brother have made. At the moment, three sites are being linked to and only one of them is actually worth anything (icanhascheezburger.com). However, any changes made to the links are immediately reverted, usually by anonymous users. Lasse Houmøller 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason any of those obviously commercial sites are still listed is because they are repeatedly mentioned in the article's mainstream press sources. ie, even icanhascheezburger shouldn't be covered in the absence of press coverage. However, given the sources I mentioned above in this talk page, it's actually gained coverage enough that it would meet WP:NOTE as a separate article. You inserted it the lolcatz site in place of another site and falsely attributed it to the other's source. Of course it was removed. MrZaiustalk 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I'm defending the anon's position rather than my own edits :) Didn't realize I was suckered into rv'ing the wrong links. The Macrocat one is the correct one, apparently. That said, neither it not the nor the lolcats.com are easily verified any longer, as the sources have now disappeared from the websites for their papers. Weird that they'd bother deleting archival material, making double checking these things a touch more difficult. MrZaiustalk 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realise I was abusing the sources, I'm sort of new to this and it wasn't my intention. It was however the intention to remove the Macrocats gallery since it's fairly useless and not covered in the article. I still feel that having quality links is vital for an article such as this.Lasse Houmøller 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you view the Macrocats site as useless? It's updated daily with fresh content and has been mentioned in several articles. MrZaius, would it be possible to link to an archive service for the now-deleted articles? Desertdwell 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worth searching on google news for a string from those articles or something - They might turn up on the Lexis thing. MrZaiustalk 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we only link to sites being mentioned by some media source somewhere? I'd think that it would be wiser to only link to sites that actually benefitted the end user, ie. popular and well thought out sites, like www.icanhascheezburger.com or www.lolcatz.net Lasse Houmøller 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The initial reason for that restriction was to prevent the page from becoming a link farm.  I don't know that much about the lolcats "movement", so if anyone familiar wants to suggest a list of worthwhile links, we can discuss that on the talk page. JavaTenor 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies for being a robot. - CobaltBlueTony 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the three links because they are links leading to commerical sites that exist to obtain money from advertisements through page views. Anyone who wishes to find cat memes and macros can easily locate them on numerous other sites (for example, http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/index.html?flow=no&large=no and katurday.com - both of which do not have advertising). Meowy 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, you've got to be kidding. That's just around the lamest reasoning I've ever heard. Besides being a blatant proof of your obvious lack of knowledge regarding online advertising, it would also mean that sites such as icanhascheezburger.com would not be allowed. Is that really what you want? Lasse Houmøller 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't see a difference between historical articles concerning say World War II and lolcats? It seems to be a very rigid interpretation of the WP:EL to me. People come here for information, you know, and external links to sites with lolcats is just that. It's like saying that an article about BMW cannot link to bmw.com because of its commercial nature. Really... Lasse Houmøller 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: From the most cursory review of the linked guidelines: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." There is no "official site" for this term. It would be bad form to link to eBay or MySpace anywhere but eBay and MySpace, because, again, they're the "official site." Note that I did not remove the commercial links, I simply explained why they were removed and that the editor who did so had a fairly decent grounding in policy. On the odd WWII point, no, there plainly is no different guideline that governs links placed there. A cursory review of World War II#External links will reveal that none are ad-sponsored blogs. MrZaiustalk 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection to those links was a feeling that it would be better to link to a website that does not have financial reasons to want to get as many visitors as possible. The www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/ website would be a better alternative if the purpose of the link is to give the reader an idea of what the article is about. The only problem is that that website is horribly badly designed: 500+ images loading on a single page, and not all have captions. Meowy 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your concern regarding commercially driven sites, but there are two arguments against this: First of all only the "top dawgs" of these sites make any money at all (like icanhascheezburger.com) and it's already listed here anyway, because of other articles mentioning it. Secondly as you yourself state, the non-profit ones are horribly designed and it's not really beneficial to the end users. Lasse Houmøller 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Any editors willing to help at I Can Has Cheezburger? would be appreciated!  --Iamunknown 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this, the Lolcats website was targeted by /b/ after its appropriation and watermarking of cat images created for 4chan (http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=LolCats). Did the same thing happen to I Can Has Cheezburger? NB, the disparity between the date the lolcat domain name was created, and the website's targetting by /b/ suggests that the actual website only went online at the end of 2006. Meowy 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested at [[I Can Has Cheezburger?]] 

message: We really should use this image somewhere:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Wikipedia-lolcat.jpg
Mathiastck 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would direct you to #Which image? and #Image. — i said 00:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #Image, with its avoid self-referencing argument, is, well, I'd better not say since I don't want a ban. I'm surprised someone didn't come up with the reasoning that it shouldn't be there because it encourages cats to vandalise Wikipedia! That said, a real caturday cat would be pictured editing the entry for the John F. Kennedy assassination, writing that it was a dog hired by eBaums that done it. Meowy 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get this linked to somehow from this page? 

message: Hello ^_^ when i searched "Lolrus", it sent me to Lolcat ;_; I wanna read about the lolrus! not the lolcat! T________T ~ Hanii Puppy / !!!Chris!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.109.228 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point. It is covered in the Wall Street Journal article linked in the external lniks. Wikipedia:Be bold and add coverage of the walrus based on that piece, and it'll stick. MrZaiustalk 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, the real-life animal the meme was based on died about 2 years ago. I wonder if they have buckets in walrus heaven? A more relevent question might be, which was coined first - lolrus or lolcat? Meowy 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a page name like LOLAnimal or something would be better and disscuss all the forms because theres more than just pictures of cats. (Eg: dogs, rabbits ect) Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is why citations can get annoying.  The original source of the bucket walrus macro has never used that term; in fact, this term was invented by the article writer; it did not appear before that.  I do not see how one article that mentions 'i has a bucket' (his common pseudomyn) is suddenly a legitimate source of nomenclature; it is not even related to cat macros, you might as well stick every animal with a macro that 4chan ever cranked out in this article; good look searching macrochan for over 9000 years.  Oh, I just thought of that- Macrohan has timestamps on when images are archived, would not the timestamps of cat macros from years ago be valid justification for the name change?  I am making a new section on this... And might I add, we collectively mourn the loss of our poor poor walrus... may he forever have buckets in that big Bel-Air in the sky.... 68.1.81.110 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the timestamps would not be valid justification for a name change, becuase the most common name is lolcat. Resolute 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This walrus was quite a popular attraction in Japan and might warrant it's own article beside the lolrus meme. Ninja337 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolrus 

message: Pretty sure lolcat doesn't count as a portmanteau word. x-ref with page for portmanteau.
--64.9.12.65 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes up all the time - Past edit summaries asserted that it's a compound word with a similar explanation. Well meaning editors occasionally replace that link with portmanteau, but the former does seem far more apt. MrZaiustalk 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well.  Compound word is far more accurate than portmanteau. Resolute 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portmanteau 

message: "The use of "lolcat" to describe the phenomenon was introduced no later than June 14, 2006 when the domain name "lolcats.com" was registered."
:The term seems to have been used as early as April 29, according to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
::That was me Steve 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, getting the right year would help ... oops Steve 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Should there be a mention here? 124.169.18.218 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel there's a need to mention it, personally. Beyond the fact that not much has been "translated" yet, any attempt to place a mention or link in the article invariably seems to lead to revert wars. Howa0082 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Two of those are kinda borderline WP:RSes, being blogs, and the first site is a blog aggregator. However, the BBC report is coverage of the blogosphere, rather than a blog itself. Feel free to add it back and source it - multiple reliable sources are needed to demonstrate adequate notability for independent coverage, but one WP:RS and two borderline ones are more than adequate for coverage within a parent topic. MrZaiustalk 01:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added lolcatbible back, added reference to BBC broadcast. And I would agree with your summation on the sources needed for parent. The problem with internet memes is they don't often make it to outside sources/maintream publications, and most of the references in this article link to the same two references. 63.65.166.90 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolcatbible 

message: I'd like to know whether there is some consensus on how to refer the Bible as - Holy Bible seems somewhat Christian - biased, because I, as an atheist, consider the bible not the least bit holy. I was considering just changing it to "Bible" but figured I'd run it through someone first, seeing as how I am a new editor. --84.90.46.116 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made the change from Holy Bible to Bible. It just seemed sooo biased. If anyone's opinion diverges, please, reply here. --84.90.46.116 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm not even certain that sentence belongs.  Random websites involving lolcats do not have greater notability because they call themselves "projects".  Resolute 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we ought to place that thing as an external link like the other lolcat websites? Would make more sence IMO. --84.90.46.116 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the part where the Bible is refered to as "Holy Bible" 

message: Hi there--In the intro to the article it says:
"O RLY? owl,[5] but the cuteness of cats enhances[6] the appeal and increasing prominence[7] of the Internet meme."
"cuteness" should be changed to something that reflects the idiocy of the cats involved.  Stupidness would be good.  Lolcats are funny because they are portrayed as barely speaking English and are found in a variety of inane and mockable situations not because they are adorable.  
Thanks!
--Fitzmadrid (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just out-and-out removed the rest of the sentence; the statement works all the better without it, with "cuteness" and "stupidness" being largely personal opinions about the meme, and opinions have no place in an encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  change from cuteness to stupidness 

message: Thus Guy claims that his grandfather Aloysius "Gorilla" Koford produced a series of newspaper strips around 1912 which is actually the root of the lolcats phrase, is his claim true? or is it a marketing ploy to sell his cartoons? 
Or is it that the first few are legit, and hes just been making new ones to continue his grandfathers comic with modern references?
--58.110.128.212 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems this link has answered my question. --58.110.128.212 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Laugh-Out-Loud Cats 

message: Section seems to contain references to unreliable sources - stuff anyone could make up, not appropriate for what intends to be a high-quality encyclopedia.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: I thought this was a variant (a lolcat variant?) of All your base. Are they different? Jd2718 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. "In ur base" is from CounterStrike, or some similar online crapfest of a game. As in "In ur base killin ur doodz". Howa0082 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In ur base 

message: I found a few articles from UK newspapers that mention lolcats, someone might want to use these to add to the article:
* http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1772506.ece
* http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2507875.ece
* http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2364184.ece
* http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1842830.ece
* http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3216033.ece
* http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2979891.ece
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2229937,00.html
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/nanimals129.xml
-- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: This article no longer even mentions the lolrus except in the vaguest possible terms, although that redirects here. Also, although the lolcat sample is lovely and properly licensed, it seems to violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference in that it references Wikipedia as an example for no particular reason. Better would be something more generic. Dcoetzee 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've suggested a solution for the lolrus redirect and also the LOLCat Bible Translation Project article over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCat Bible Translation Project, which might interest people here. Would like to hear some opinions. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolrus redirect and self-reference 

message: I have added 4chan.org as that is where lolcats originated from, so is relevant.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your query, 4chan has already been credited and linked in the main article, and does not belong in the external links as the site itself is not relevant to lolcats. Please see previous discussions concerning the external links section (specifically September 07). --72.193.84.13 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry can't find it, you'd better link me to them.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lolcat#External_links --72.193.84.13 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 4chan is not mentioned there.--Seriousspender (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the main article, on the article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat#History  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.84.13 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you going to give any real reason why it should not be in the external links section instead of just avoiding the question?--Seriousspender (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How did I not answer your question with my first response here? 4chan itself is not a lolcats site - this article is specifically about lolcats. Therefor, 4chan as an external link in the external links section is not relevant. --72.193.84.13 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If 4chan is credited properly, why should they be an external link, more than a reference? 4chan, may it never die, IS an 18+ site. And that aside, through 4chan birthed the idea, it's not an exclusive 4chan meme anymore. They're on all the chans, MySpace, LiveJournal, and pretty much anywhere people post images. Mfrisk (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link addition