Talk:LOLCat Bible Translation Project

message: Notability in question. A few news articles do not add up to real notability. Thoughts?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it also was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune and in the Courier Journal. Not sure what the threshold for notability. According to the lolcat discussion page it now meets it for notability due to the nature of the content (lolcats being a meme). Just what I've heard. Zotnix (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I'm surprised this hasn't been deleted by an admin yet. Keep up the good work guys. For as long as it'll last. ;_;  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.191.254 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good luck. 

message: I see this joked about all over the place, but it seems to have never happened.  I think it was just joked about so much that it was incorrectly asserted that it had happened.  I even found a recent Islamic blog posting from someone who would seem to have known, and they say such a thing doesn't actually exist.  I know the statement of a "Ben" saying the translation exists is sourced, but I think we need some actual evidence (i.e., website, print reference, etc.). Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an adaptation? 

message: Apparently, the LOLCat bible is set to be published in January 2010. I see no mention of this in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.93.19 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So provide the source and add it? Richard001 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing? 

message: I am not being old-maidish, but the lolcat bible translation project does not seem noteworthy, because a large part of the file "cache" that google brings up when typing this in, is basically spam. We don't need a webpage on everything. I may send a copypasta of this page to an editor friend of mine for deletion within one working week. If there are any complaints please cast them here now.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have external references, and is therefore notable per WP:N. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this fundamental page neccesary. 

message: This is a really poor page, with really poor sources and a really poor subject. I do not see any hope for this page. I can only think that the people behind the "LOLcat Bible Translation Project" set up this page so as they could make more sales. This is, of course, completely against WP:NOT. Thank you.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCat Bible Translation Project Second Nomination|Proposal for Deletion (PROD)]] 

message: It seems to me there are alot of articles that are worse in their makeup, and less important on wikipedia, and yet they don't get this kinda grief. Is it just religious folks getting upset?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.32.16 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. 79.101.74.215 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No, it's people upset that their stupid internet in-joke articles get deleted while this stupid internet in-joke article inexplicably remains. 71.254.119.3 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the grief? 

message: In the first sentence of the article, the LOLCat Bible is called a "parody".   I would argue that it is a genuine translation or a satire translation, rather than a parody.  Many of the 'translators' (most, actually) have earnestly adapted the text into LOLSpeak.  LOLSpeak has now rules of grammar, and syntax, along with spelling protocols for conversion of English into the language of kittehz.  These are referenced on the sidebar of the main page of the site.98.167.162.96 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really a parody? 

message: There have been several RfCs on whether to list non-religions such as "none" in the religion entries (religion, denomination, religious affilliaton, etc.) of infoboxes:
*15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.
*17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.
This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.
*31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.
This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.
*11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.
In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.
There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing non-religions such as "none" in the religion entries of infoboxes: 

message: https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0010498/ --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wild.  I didn't know the LoC was running their own instance of the Internet Archive software.  Do you think the s I just added in place of the dead www.lolcatbible.com should be changed to from the Wayback Machine version to the Library of Congress version?  --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library of Congress