Talk:Leet/Archive 2

message: Yeah, I think it should be removed from the Leet article, as it already has its own category at Internet slang. The reason for this is that stuff like "kekeke", "Zerg rush", ROFL and such really have little to do with 1337 as a phenomenon. The way I see it, leetspeak is strictly the art of obscuring text using numbers or other letters on the keyboard. The "Over-exclamation and other emphasis" could easily go as well.
A lot of things in this article is about common internet language for 13-year old Counterstrike gamers. While I'm aware that this kind of style has been shoved under the expanding '1337'-category, I still think it's a wrong turn to take as it has nothing to do with what it originally started out as, at all. This article has been marked heavily by the large amount of frustrated, grammatically correct internet users, aggravated at other, minor-aged internet users speaking what I would rather call n00bspeak than l33tspeak :) Apocryphite 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the "vocabulary" category 

message: Someone took the time to convert the entire article into Leet. Here 's a link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leet&oldid=21226208 to that revision. Lisiate 02:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they just used an automatic translator. God damn vandals. --cheese-cube 09:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe this should go into the encyclopedia dramatica? It deserves to be there.
Zaphod Beeblebrox 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leet translation

message: The section greeklish doesnt belong in that article. It came about as a means to be able to comunicate in Greek since most electronic  devices have a poor support for the Greek language. Almost all Greek speakers who use technology (most people) have had this problem  and therefore especially in the early days of the net needed to invent a way to communicate. Presumably the only similarity except from the fact that it is a transliteration is it´s use of numbers for characters that doesn exist in the "correct" Greeklish, for example the use of 8 in place of "theta" (θήτα) or the use of 3 in place of "xi" (x pronounced like the x in exodus, Ξί in Greek). It is not a way to create an elite, and it came about presumably by some form of trade war on protocols and standards of the kind that occured at the time that DVDs and CDROMs were to be standardised, hence the Greek codepage can be either ISO-8859-7 or "wingreek"(win-1253) or MacGreek (don´t ask). There was an effort to standardise with Unicode but this seems to be ignored by most software makers even nowdays.
--Vousmanos 08:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Greeklish 

message: An anon IP (User:65.33.207.254) contributed this (now first) chapter of Leet. I fail to see any relevance (read: 1337|\|355) of this Doomish fact for the article. Anyone else agrees that "First Usage of Leetspeak" should be made an e><ample of and promptly o|3137eo|? --Misza13 (Talk) 19:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Usage of Leetspeak 

message: === Noobishness ===
I've reverted quite a bit, (be bold)
First was for the most recent edit abotu the math. That was unimportant, irrelevant, and unhelpful. Leet can also be used to make fun of his mom, but we don't add that in here.
Also, I've reverted a bunch of additions to the noob section. (which actually reverts over a vandalism revert).
First I think that these kinds of remarks belong in the article for noob. Only but the most basic comments regarding noobishness belong here. Second, it didn't seem very accurate (original research only?). As far as I can tell:
* noober is used either to rhyme with uber, or with an -er modifier for noob.
* nubian is possibly real, but given the edit history of this user on this article, I've decided to blanket revert for safety. It could very well, just be used to describe the things noobs do, not referencing the noobs themselves.
* nubnuts 0 google hits (I was expecting at least something)
* noobnuts appears to be a username on several forums. The first google hit might be something, but seems very much a neologism.
So if you've any questions about any of this, feel free to contact me, but I (for the moment) stand my ground).
McKay 03:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: McKay [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|being bold]]

message: I've reverted quite a bit, (be bold)
First was for the most recent edit abotu the math. That was unimportant, irrelevant, and unhelpful. Leet can also be used to make fun of his mom, but we don't add that in here.
Also, I've reverted a bunch of additions to the noob section. (which actually reverts over a vandalism revert).
First I think that these kinds of remarks belong in the article for noob. Only but the most basic comments regarding noobishness belong here. Second, it didn't seem very accurate (original research only?). As far as I can tell:
* noober is used either to rhyme with uber, or with an -er modifier for noob.
* nubian is possibly real, but given the edit history of this user on this article, I've decided to blanket revert for safety. It could very well, just be used to describe the things noobs do, not referencing the noobs themselves.
* nubnuts 0 google hits (I was expecting at least something)
* noobnuts appears to be a username on several forums. The first google hit might be something, but seems very much a neologism.
So if you've any questions about any of this, feel free to contact me, but I (for the moment) stand my ground).
McKay 03:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noobishness 

message: This list is long, redundant, and hard to verify.  Can we just list the extremely common ones (e.g. teh, pwn), and say that adjacent letters are commonly transposed for effect (like->liek, lame->laem)?  With a constantly evolving language like leet where the emphasis is on generalization, it seems silly to list frequent misspellings, since any word can be turned into leet by deliberate misspelling.  e.g. any person familiar with leet would know waht I maent if I wroet thsi, but it doesnt maen we haev to list "waht", "maent", "wroet", "thsi", "maen", and "haev". Kjl 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequent misspellings

message: As soon as the early 90's, word formations involving substitutions of "8" for "ate" (such as l8r, gr8, and so forth) were already part of BBS message boards; thus, such words should not be considered a part of "AOL/IM speak", as they are not an invention of the AOL community. It has been thus edited.
* I'll vouch for having seen "l8r" as early as the mid 1980s on Commodore BBSes Murple 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of -8- ("l8r", "gr8", etc.) 

message: I have not read the article very thoroughly, but I haven't seen mentioned that these days almost everyone uses 1337 for its comedic value (well, except those annoying 12-year-olds in multiplayer games). I think that the majority (myself included) uses it to annoy and joke about than for any of the reasons in the article. Poromenos 00:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: '/34/-/, !7 |2311'/ (4/\/ |33 /-/!14|2!0|_|5. Feel free to add stuff. Matt Yeager 05:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedic value? 

message: I added "The term "r0x0r j00r b0x0r" itself probably relates to hacking itself, with a person being able to gain access to and, from there, "rock their box". It is also possible that it is a derivation from ".
I'm pretty sure that "r0x0rz j00r s0x0rs" didn't come in until way after *"b0x0rz". But I left the other explanation because I don't think this can be proven.
-Fishdinner 10.21.05
Is there a way to fit in the fact that it's a scandanavian j? i.e. it's pronounced like y, as in j00r -> your.
Ja, but it's not only Scandanavian. I reckons it's got to do with the germanics in general (dutch, danes, swedes, germs etc). 1337 iz universal, so there's loadz ov international influences. The demo scene was big in central and northern europe all thru the 80s and 90s. I think this could be emphasised more in the article, a whole section on internationalness. How else to exsplain the non-rhotic forms?
User:Tony Danza 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of x0r 

message: Should this article mention the time on Jeopardy that a CMU student wagered $1337? --NeuronExMachina 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, awesome. I would think so, probably in the "Social considerations" section :) Apocryphite 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeopardy 

message: Either redirect from 1337 or move to 1337 with a redirect in place. What do you think? Poorsod 11:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know 1337 was a year, right? I think it takes precedence.--Alhutch 08:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, there's already a disambig in place at the top of the year 1337 page that leads people to this article if they want.--Alhutch 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move/redirect 

message: some languages use number combined with special characters in addition to charachters to provide readable non-latin languages, for example, in arabic 9aba7 instead of the similar prounciation " sabah " or " ba6i7' " instead of the similar prounciation "batikh" which are the words صباح and بطيخ respectivily. it is usually used to represent sounds that dont map correctly to the sounds of english: 2(a') 3{A'a) 6(Tta) 6'(Th'a) 5(Kh'a) 9(Ssa) 9'(Dha) 3'(Gha') 7 (H-ha) $ (Sh'a) are examples, what article matches that?  (Unattributed comment)
I suggest that you go ahead and add a section on Arabic under the heading "leet in other languages", next to the subsections on Japanese, Cyrillic and Greek practices. --Slashme 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  typing non-latin languages leet-like language 

message: Recently the label of cryptography as a setting for 1337 was removed.  I replaced it along with a comment instructing anyone wishing to change it to see this page first.  The reason for that is that it does appear to qualify under the current definition, as layed out in Cryptography.  Cryptography does not require any form of Encryption.  It is simply a method of either authentication information, or limiting the number of people able to interpret the message.  1337 does just that.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing something here. Leet is used for fun (mostly). Now imagine that someone starts writing lojbanic (for example) - also just for amusement. Under your interpretation this would also qualify as cryptography (not many people speak lojbanic), but is it really? I guess the actual question is whether Leet is a constructed language. I wouldn't say it is - in which case the cryptography-argument would be valid - some people think different though.  --Misza13 (Talk) 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leet is used by spammers as a constructed language to fool spam filters (as per article) →AzaToth 18:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, thats what I'm going at with this.  In this article, it states that leet was essentially direived from the English language for the purpose of bypassing filters and for being able to talk essentially in front of someone without them knowing what it means.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptography 

message: I've been thinking... if Leet is a constructed language, then why shouldn't we have a Leet Wikipedia? (1337 \/\/ | |< | P 3 |> | 4) After all, major websites like Google already have a leet translation. Uncyclopedia, a website inspired on Wikipedia, has articles on leet as well. What do you think? Who joins me? |-|4|1 j00! Ruela 01:26, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a spoken language. It's like latin--though many people can speak it, it's not used, for practical purposes. Second of all, there is no regulated spelling of leet words, so there wouldn't be an easy way to regulate it. In my opinion, a leet wikipedia would just be difficult to regulate and messy. authraw 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we *do* have a Latin wikipedia. However, Wikimedia is less accepting of constructed languages in general. It might link to a l33t-language Wikipedia if you hosted it independently. -Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 04:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe it's not a good idea... but if anyone has any interest in a Leet Wikipedia, contact me. Like Tim said, it could be hosted independently (Wikicities already hosts a Tokipona Wikipedia, which was locked as a regular Wikipedia). There has been a request for a Pig Latin Wikicity, but it was denied because it should be at Conlang Wikipedia, so probably a Leet Wikipedia should apply there. Happy new year everyone! Ruela 14:44, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point, I think, is that leet isn't a language at all. Not even a constructed one (like Esperanto, for which we do have a Wikiepedia) or a mainly written one (like Latin, for which we also have a Wikipedia). It's simply written English, with some fairly rule-based orthographic changes applied. Same goes for Pig Latin, and I suspect this, too, is why it was denied: It's not a language at all. We already have Wikipedias for the conlangs Esperanto and Klingon, so there's no precedent for denial on that basis alone. It's even less of an argument in this case (as well as Pig Latin, which seems to be good for comparison), since neither Leet nor Pig Latin are really constructed per se. EldKatt (Talk) 14:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Another bad reason for a leet Wikipedia is that there are many different forms, with the same characters being used for many letters (e.g 1 = I and L), and many characters being used for each letter, so leet can sometimes be difficult to read. - Ghelaetalkcontribs 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's all the fun in it! Writing longish text in leet is a sort of an art. But the real question is: would the leet.wikipedia articles be created by pure "translation" (i.e. transliteration) or would we go all the leet way for sth like "Y0! 4|b3|2+ 31|\|57£!/V \/\/@5 d4 g33|<i3S+ 5c|3N+!5+ 0f d3M 4ll!!!!11!one!!!" (which is slightly POV)? Misza13 T C 13:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would join a leet wikipedia! 1'm 73h |337 m4573r. ILovEPlankton 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in Leet? 

message: What town has the zip code of 31337? Based on the numbering, it's somewhere on the East Coast. Have tech companies settled there to slowly grow it into "The Silicon Valley of the East" due to its ZIP Code's meaning? --Shultz 05:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to US Postal Service: The ZIP Code you entered could not be found in our database. --Misza13 (Talk) 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ZIP Code 31337

message: Isn't 'spelt' a British term? Seeing as the rest of this article is written using the American spellings of various words, shouldn't we be using 'spelled'? authraw 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Spelt' vs 'Spelled'? 

message: thats the trouble with the internet generation, you think the world started in 1984............
The first use of forms of 1337 were in car registration number plates, (two decades before the Internet), or as they are correctly called in the UK, VIN plates, whereby people would spell names and words using the limited character format, e.g, 'Fionas' being rendered as F10NAS , or 'Jason' as J4SON. Whereas the number plate format in the US was more flexible and made it easier to do this sort of personalising, the UK strict number plate format meant the english had to be more inventive. This practice was not exactly widespread, but certainly common anough by the 1970's such that the registration COM1C was auctioned for a considerable sum to  a famous TV stand up comic.  When the internet and texting arose one and two decades later respectively, the same method of transliteration was used to save keystrokes and provide some measure of one upmanship to the uninitated.
* I suppose this is comparable to elementary school kids typing 58008 on calculators, turning them upside down, and giggling about it saying "boobs"... However, Leet is more than just replacing letters with numbers. Murple 20:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origins 

message: I find the comments on academia particularly offensive, specifically:
Another view is that obsessive attention to grammar, vocabulary, and spelling is increasingly outmoded on the current medium (the Internet) or the current period (of increasing internationalism). Underemployed academics - a group that is well known for fastidious attention to spelling - may constitute a large portion of the group that assesses themselves as highly Internet-savvy, and (conversely) leet users somehow less-savvy. While the academy, (the prime locus of the aforementioned group) may serve as a conservatory for Standard English, live languages are known to evolve (sometimes rapidly).
Additionally, stating that use of leet is indicative of level of Internet mastery may represent a thinly-veiled nationalist or ethnocentric urge (cf. the English-Only movement; the Ebonics Controversy).'''
-- CCJ
:Er, which comments about academia? Avriette 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after quick glance at history, etc) Oh. Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed the npov tag, as I don't think it's appropriate. Please also note that above, I have mentioned that I plan to reword this article substantially. I don't expect that it will seem overly pov after I am done with it. However, as it is large (56k!), it will take me a while. Do you have specific suggestions for how you would reword the above? Avriette 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Academia

message: I'm curious about the inclusion of a language box. How is leet a language? If anything, it's a creative orthography for the english language. And I don't agree it's constructed - it seems to have arrisen perfectly naturally among online communities, not in a planned fashion by one individual as most constructed languages are. So what's with the language box? --Krsont 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, if you'd read the rest of the talk page, you'd see that there has been an ongoing discussion about this, for some time. Avriette 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did read it, but I still wanted to voice my annoyance seperately. --Krsont 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what reason?  It would be far more productive to do so in the other line of discussion.  It is most definitely recent enough.  Posting it seperately serves no purpose.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this really a constructed language? or a language at all? 

message: Is it just me, or do other users find that the archive template at the top of this page clashes with the featured article template? Setokaiba✌≝ 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just you. I moved things around and it should hopefully look better now. --GraemeL (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks; it looks much better now. Setokaiba✌≝ 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive box 

message: I am aware that people may object to the  template inclusion. I myself find it to be an imperfect solution. However, I do believe it is better than the language infobox. I would like to add Leet to the english dialects template. The reasoning for this is that other dialects, such as Spanglish, are there already. Leet fits there about as well as it's going to fit anywhere else.
I would also like people to proofread this. I have done my best to neutralize the tone. I have removed 19k of content either outright, or to separate articles (I realize this is a popular article to edit, and it will probably take several people "watching" it to make sure it doesn't sprawl again). I have also added sources (which were hard to find), as well as include terms which are new to the article, and pertinent to the subject.
I have a couple concerns. First, the "transliteration" table for English is large, and difficult to read. The data therein is necessary. I'm not sure how to clean it up. Perhaps a vertical display would be better than horizontal. Also, in the actual text of the article, it's nigh impossible to read because of its horizontal orientation. The other thing that concerns me is the cyrillic transliteration table. That table exists in the article linked from that section. I think we might be able to get away without having it at all. That would also cut down on the size of the article (I'd love to see us make the < 32k size).
Lastly, I've removed all the images. None of them were especially relevant. None of them provided additional depth to the article. I'm not sure what would add depth, although I'd like to see an image added to this article.
Anyways, I worked pretty hard on this to try to get it to a point where we could all agree that it was neutral, that it was verifiable, and that it was a lot cleaner than where it started. I welcome comments here or on my talk page.
Avriette 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. I spent something like five hours on it, and my wife kept asking me why. :) Anyways, the reason I am not necessarily in favor of adding it to  is that I don't think it's 100% english. See related parts regarding chinese, greek, cyrillic, etc. I think it's a dialect, but it may be the first... language parasite defined as such. Also, it may be the first recursive dialect. See where this is going? I think it could be an english dialect, but it would do an injustice to the ... dialect (or whatever it is) as a whole. That having been said, I don't think anyone who has yet commented on this discussion has the expertise to decide either way. As such, it remains original research (if it weren't, I would have changed the english dialect template myself). Thanks again for your recognition. :) Avriette 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leet to me (not a language scholar here or anything) seems to be a universal interpretational dialect, or at least one native to the entire latin alphabet.  However, the coining of that phrase would be entirely against WP:NOR, so what I say means nothing!  fwah!--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I may start working on cleaning that up. I'm sure you understand that it is important to provide counter-views to an article. I figured that was the clearest way of doing so. I'll have less time this week to work on it, but I may get to it. Avriette 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the best way to think about defining leet is in terms of what it isn't, rather than what it is. Leet definitely isn't synonymous with the English language - the average speaker of English would have difficulty reading it, and even if they learned all of the characters used, there are idioms and grammatical constructions which aren't identical or even similar to English. However, so much of Leet is based on English that it wouldn't be fair to call it a distinct language unto itself. Most linguists base their definitions of what a "dialect" is on the region in which it is spoken, and Leet is definitely not regional. Whether this means that Leet can't be classified as a dialect, or whether it means that the definitions of "dialect" need to be expanded, is a matter for debate by linguists, and while the difficulty with classification really ought to be mentioned, I think the very fact that nobody can seem to agree on what exactly Leet is means that we shouldn't try to come down on one side or another. I'm generally opposed to placing it on the English Dialects page, or any other linguistic-type page, until it is classified officially one way or another, simply because it's entirely possible that new classifications will need to be created for languages like Leet. The Disco King 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated content 

message: Neto, what is going on here? I removed the trailing "-->", and mentioned it in the edit log. However, you reverted its removal, saying that "sources need to be cited." I'm not sure that falls under the topic of "sources." It looks to me rather like an error in markup. Am I missing something? Avriette 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  markup at end of article 

message: I had an idea for restructuring the transliteration table like this, because I was confused by all those commas:
A                             	B                                      	C            	D                           	E                        	F                   	G                               	H                                                                        	I                              	J                   	K                    	L †              	M                                                                        	N                                               	O                  	P                                          	Q                   	R                                     	S                           	T †           	U                	V      	W                                                           	X                     	Y                                                                 	Z
4  /\  @  /-\  ^  ä  ª  aye  ∂	8  6  13  |3  ß  P>  |:  !3  (3  /3  )3	[  ¢  <  (  ©	)  o|  [)  I>  |>  ?  T)  .|	3  &  £  ë  [-  €  ê  |=-	=  ƒ  |#  i=  ph  /=	G  g  6  &  (_+  9  C-  gee  (γ,	#  /-/  [-]  ]-[  )-(  (-)  :-:  |~|  {=}  <~>  |-|  ]~[  }{  ]-[  ?  }-{	1  !  |  &  eye  3y3  ï  ][  []	j  _|  ;  _/  </  (/	X  |<  |{  ]{  }<  |(	1  £  7  1_  |  |_  #  l	M  m  //.  |v|  [V]  {V}  |\/|  /\/\  (u)  []V[]  (V)  (\/)  /|\  Μ  М  м	//  ^/  |\|  /\/  [\]  <\>  {\}  []\[]  n  /V  ₪	0  ()  ?p  []  *  ö	^  |*  |o  |º  |^(o)  |>  |"  9  []D  |̊  |7	q  (_,)  ()_  0_  <|	2  P\  |?  /2  |^  lz  ®  [z  12  Я  2	S  s  5  2  $  z  §  ehs  es	7  +  -|-  1  ']['  †	(_)  |_|  v  ü  Ü	\/  \_/	\/\/  vv  '//  \^/  (n)  \V/  \//  \X/  \|/  \_|_/  \_:_/  Ш	><  Ж  }{  ecks  ×  )(	Y  y  j  `/  Ý  ÿ  ý  Ŷ  ŷ  Ÿ  Ϋ  Υ  Ψ  φ  λ  Ұ  ұ  ў  ץ  צ  -)  Ч	2  z  ~\_  ~/_  %
† Note the use of 7 for either L or T.
I wanted the benefit of more eyeballs before I committed the change to check I didn't obliaterate anything important.
There's a couple of little outstanding issues:
* I tried but failed to ensure that all the columns were of equal width.
* What is that thing second from the bottom of the P column? It displays as a box in my browser; it seems to be some sort of unicode combiner but makes no sense if I add .
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, I think that's a great start. Do you suppose there's a way to make it even easier to read than that? Perhaps breaking it up into two tables? (stacked vertically) I like it more than the extant one, but it's still kind of tough to read. As well, it may be wider than some people's browser pane. I don't know what that would cause. Many of us have large resolution (in excess of 1024x768), but there are quite a few of us out there with 800x600 or even 640x480. Thoughts? Also, thanks so much for your hard work on this. Avriette 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, that is odd. Avriette 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They arent duplicates... they're unicode characters that look similar.  ALKIVAR™ 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On my browser they look identical, but that's probably because I'm using Courier New. What would be the least obfuscatory method of indicating this? I'm wondering whether we could split the huge row into several chunks by "style of transliteration", dividing the "pictograms" (or whatever you call /\/\) and the "unicode doppelgangers" from each other, but that could make the table much "taller". Thoughts? —Phil | Talk 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructured transliteration table 

message: I'm going to remove the box with 'leet english' in it. Reasons :-
From the article - It is also important to note that Leet itself is not solely based upon one language or character set. In fact, Greek, Russian, Chinese, and other languages have been subjected to the Leet "cipher" - if leet english is valid, then so is leet russian, leet chinese, leet navaho etc - every language in the world that is used online would presumably have a 'leet' dialect. Leet is simply a different way of writing the parent language. A dialect by definition has to be spoken. Even leets new words have been 'unleeted' back to standard phonetic words (e.g. haxxored). Leet is not a dialect, it's just a different way of writing the parent language, so I'm going to be bold and remove the box. 81.76.20.44 11:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed box 

message: FWIW, smrt and samrt mean "death" and "deathbed" in Serbo-Croatian language & family, and possibly in few other Slavic languages (Chech?). Althought the Simpson's episode is the more likely origin, I just thought I could mention it; strange enough, the previous paragraph describes the use of "death" in conjunction with "ist". In any case, the connection is c00|.
Googling a bit – Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation (metro operator) as the 2nd link for "smrt"?! ROTFML. Duja 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  smrt/samrt 

message: I can't verify it, but I do believe that "pwned" first appeared in a release of warcraft 2. It came up with the message "Player1 was pwned by Player2" or something like that when someone died in a multiplayer match, and was indeed a misspelling during the creation of the game.
:Someone seems to have added that "pwned" may have first appeared in a WoW typo. This is so laughable I'm removing it immediately, but I assume that it refers to the War/StarCraft theory, with a particular custom map having such a typo. That's mentioned in the pwn article, so I won't add it here as the article is long enough already. --Switch 15:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pwn 

message: Section 3.1.1 and Section 3.1.5 seem to contain very similar information. Perhaps a merge is required. cBuckley 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated Information 

message: The article is too long.  I propose moving Leet#Leet_influence_on_other_languages_and_character_sets to Influence of leet on other languages. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Long 

message: I will be chopping up and attempting (another) rewrite on the article. I agree it needs to be separated into a few articles. I am also adding several references (at least two have been added today). I will be reworking the references sections, and hopefully making this article less attractive to the various.. nubs who insist on editing it and adding all the garbage spoken at their particular high school. I'd welcome suggestions at this point. ... aa:talk 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved a lot of content out. It's still hefty at 45kb. However, it's more readable presently. Also, I've substantiated claims of it being a language. As it isn't standardized by any body, I have added it (as a dialect of english) to the english dialects template, and re-added that template. The "moved out" articles aren't in great shape. Somebody more familiar than I should expand them or merge them somewhere useful. ... aa:talk 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your revision made this article into a POV dissertation on why you think it's a language.  Phrases like "What is clear is that Leet is an evolving language" show that POV clearly. You also cannot say "Leet is a language" and "has not gained official status as a language recognized by any international body"... any n00b can call it a language, but that does not make it so.  -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too long, too bloated, etc. 

message: Fine, let's look at those four sources.  The first thing I'll note is that none of these sources is in print form - all were found on the web. Googling "leet AND language", three show up at the top, but all within the first 100 results.  Googling "leet" alone, only the ABCnews (Malone) comes in the top 100 results.  Googling est phun. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "sources" 

message: * 
My main concern is that his first listed source is Wikipedia itself.  That alone may disqualify him, especially where he makes statements that arent using footnote reference numbers.  In particular, his first sentence refers to leet as an "internet language1... referencing Wikipedia.  In his entire piece, he does not use the term "slang" or "dialect" at all, signifying that he's not addressing the classification issue in proper light.  Several of his other sources are not in English originally, so I think his translation is what results in the over-use of the term "language".  The conclusion section uses the term "Internet English", not leet, but even says "we can assert that 'internet English' does not exist as an independent variety of English".  In short, even if we could use this as a reliable source, it would not favorably help the "leet is a language" crowd.  -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristof Van de Velde 

message: * 
Sasha's here written a term paper for her "Engl 310" class, and she's not a notable primary source.  It should not be used in our articles Reference section.  The only value of her paper is for what she uses as references (something we might consider checking out). She does not make the language assertion - her conclusion is summed up "I believe it can be considered the first non-verbal and wholly Internet-based dialect". If it came from a linguist, it might impress me, but it's just a student's paper. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sasha Dyck 

message: * 
Joanne is in the "Brisbane Graduate School of Business", and she's not a linguist and not a primary source worth using.  She mentions leet once in this sentence - "It is imperative at this point that I at least mention LEET SPEAK. Adopted widely by the technological elite, this language was initially thought to have evolved when the Internet was adopted by technologically inferior beings who did not understand programming languages."  This unfortunately does not give a footnote or other reference.  My casual read on this is that she uses the term "language" only in passing, not as an assertion of significance.  -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joanne Jacobs 

message: * 
A reliable news organization, and a notable columnist, but it's a commentary piece.  He makes use of the term "language", in the first sentence - "Great technological innovations change the culture, and that in turn changes the language."   This comment asserts nothing about the status of leet, and only mentions "changes" to the language... referring to English general.  I think he means "changes" as in the way language naturally evolves... but he's clearly not asserting leet is a language unto itself, though later hs does say "What you'll discover is that a whole new language is being created before your eyes."  This is a great reference for many reasons, but he's also not a linguist, and uses the term language in passing.  I think this can be useful, but only to prove my assertion that some people think of it as a foreign language, because it looks so strange.  It does not help in classifying this formally. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael S Malone 

message: Alright, I think it is largely due to the lengthy, less than verifiable, generally un-encyclopedic set of word endings and terms, that this article has lost featured status. I don't think I can get it back, but I'm going to try. Later tonight (round 9:00 - 10:00 PST) I'm going to take some of the stuff on articles like pwn and move it to the appropriate articles. Sometimes I act w/o thinking however, So, to anyone who is watching this page, feel free to revert my edits and tell me what I did wrong on my talk page. Thanks all -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite section... 

message: This was not a separate section, nor was it signed.
 Nor was it even comprehensible, it's a giant run-on sentence.
 But cut the guy some slack, maybe he only had 30 seconds or something.
 Laugh all you want, but it actually happens sometimes. Flameviper12 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Wiki-Formatting

message: I know this isn't the place to ask for stuff like this, but going with the general helpfulness of the Wikipedia populace, I'll have a go anyway.
Can anyone direct me to any true leet in use; forums, webpages, even archived chats? I'm studying it in a linguistic investigation and any help would be gratefull received.
Thanks for your time. Seegoon 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help? 

message: As ridiculously argued-out as the discussion on linguisitc classification of leet is, has anyone considered that it is a cant (argot)?  I am not a professional linguist, but leet certainly seems to fit that category more than any else.  Dialect seems wrong as it indicates geographic or social groups.  Slang is closer, but it does not account for the pidgin-nature of leet.  Argot is a type of cant used by criminals (Thieves' cant).  According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a cant is "The special terminology understood among the members of a profession, discipline, or class but obscure to the general population."  Cants are naturally evolving and are "often marked by the use of stock phrases."  Other sources indicate that cants often include constructs similar to those is pidgin.
I'd like to hear what others have to say about this idea.
:Both "cant" and "argot" seem to imply that secrecy is a desired goal. While it can be argued that leet is used (as Cant (language) boldly claims) "to bypass automatic text parsers", I'd like to see some reliable sources before assuming so.
:Also, the mention of pidgin intrigues me. I've seen the term mentioned before in this article, but I can't see how leet is in any way similar to a pidgin. EldKatt (Talk) 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Well said. EldKatt (Talk) 16:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, the only book written on the subject by a linguist is 'Language and the Internet' by David Crystal. Here's a quote from page 238: 'Is the Internet emerging as a homogenous linguistic medium or is it a collection of distinct dialects? The latter, surely, is the case.' Ehheh 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to read the context.  Keep in mind that there is a distinction between number/symbol transliteration in Leet ("5p34k4g3") and common internet slang and shortcuts ("cya").  Some authors tend to talk about all forms interchangably or group them when making broad statements. -- Netoholic @ 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cant 

message: Given the apparent popularity of this article, special care must be taken to prevent the abuse of the editing function.
It was pretty FUBARed when I stumbled on this page for a friend, and I spent about 25 minutes cleaning it up, I think.
It would be great if someone could volunteer to maintain this page from all detritus.
--Logical2u 20:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam and 1337. 

message: For such a niche language, that is not understood by the overwhelming majority of the world, it seems that practical uses is a bit of a contradiction. Verily, little at all is practical about "leet."--Josh Rocchio 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its lack of understanding by most is its most practical use.  The point is that it can be used to prevent others from understanding it, and is used like that frequently still, along with censor bypasses.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In certain games, like Starcraft, leet is the main form of communication between countries with wildly differen langages. - CorbinSimpson 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  practical uses 

message: Isn't "aye" pronounced as "eye" and not like the letter "A"? Front243 21:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aye 

message: The misspelling of "ever" (from "best/worst. noun. evar.") seems to have been popularized by JeffK. 68.8.21.7 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of "evar"

message: *Leet seems to be an informal term, whereas 1337 seems to be the official name or Leetspeak the full name. Do you agree with me? Crad0010 17:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we move Leet to 1337 or Leetspeak?