Talk:LOLCODE

message: :Looking into this, it would seem content from an older stub has been merged into Lolcat, so a split from there back here may be appropriate. (It also gives a source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4862013.html) which should help source this article, and there's a separate source for the hello world program; I've looked at it and although it's not a particularly large mention, it shows notability for this in my mind.) One ironic thing here is that I can't tell for certain that this is what happened; although I'm an admin here, I can't check the deleted history at the moment because I'm logged in with my non-admin account for security reasons. Most of the other top Google hits seem to be blogs, but it seems quite possible that more sources may be found. ais523
::The "developers", if you wish, of LOLCODE vocalize that while based on LOLcat, LOLCODE is different. Since LOLCODE is based off of LOLcat, it deserved at least a bluelink in that article, but by no means should a programming language be in the same article about cats doing crazy things and talking like gamerz. The old stub was deleted, because everyone seems to fear that Wikimedia is suddenly running of of disk space (or more officially, it seems, it was "un-encyclopedic"; did you know that until after his death, the print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't have an entry for "Steve Irwin"). That said, I believe LOLCODE has a number of third party references (You guys do read Digg, right?). Although I've been really busy lately, I will do my best to contribute to Wikipedia again, through this article (You do realize it was unfriendly things like this that drove me away from Wikipedia in the first place? You guys say this is the free encyclopedia and that anyone can edit... Is it really hurting you if a small article about a funny, goofy, somewhat stupid programming languages exists? Terinjokes 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all he was saying is it wouldn't hurt to split off the newly restored lolcode article from the content that was formerly merged into lolcat. That said, it's too late now and there's only about one line of data that you didn't cover here. Given coverage of the variety of implementations of lolcode interpreters and compilers and given coverage of the source from lolcats and the other sources cited below, this'll work just fine. Note that the reason the old stub was deleted was the lack of available reliable sources (there were few at the time of the initial AfD and DRV) - an unsourced article should normally be improved to meet WP:RELY and WP:NOTE, as is plainly under way here. Good job, and I'll try to help more in mainspace on the morrow. MrZaiustalk 05:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/split

message: Additional sources from the DRV:
the subject of a Microsoft joke and Media coverage of that. It was also apparently mentioned at linux.com(another page linking to it, which might be an RS in itself) , although that article seems to have been deleted for some reason. It has been the subject of academic lectures at Australian National University - Given by User:L. MrZaiustalk 12:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected this to Lolcode, the proper title. If you guys gave your opinion on the DRV, it would be appreciated, and would help get the proper article restored and in shape faster. --Lucid 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A newly rewritten article doesn't require a full DRV. Removing this article via redirect, which, by the way, I had no hand in writing, rather than improving it and moving it over lolcode w/an admin's assistance, seems like it would have been preferable. There was nothing procedurally wrong with the initial AfD or DRV, other than the pesky way people ignored Gracenotes' questions about redirecting rather than deleting. Note also that, barring its deletion, rving the redirect at lolcode and the link to here at lolcat (assuming they were done before redirecting this page, which your edit summaries seem to imply) were largely negative edits, IMHO. The time would have been far better spent integrating your sources here. MrZaiustalk 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, part deux

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolcode&oldid=135935389 Last pre-AfD version of lolcode (CsD'd recreation was apparently the basis for this article)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolcode&oldid=136371453 Comments from Talk:Lolcode on June 6th that were deleted shortly after AfD closure
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolcode&oldid=136121866 Comments from Talk:Lolcode prior to AfD closure
There's not a whole lot here, but it's interesting all the same. MrZaiustalk 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful historical links

message: I don't know where the original author got the syntax, but the main page says something different...."KTHXBYE" is used to exit loops, as is "IM OUTTA YR LOOP"... I don't think we have a very good consensus.--Huo Ma Ke 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax 

message: If LOLCODE is really a .NET language, then CAN HAS STDIO? would not work because I/O functions are provided by the System.IO namespace, not stdio.h or iostream.h. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not solely (nor primarily or originally) a .NET language. 74.74.227.114 (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I realize the futility of replying to you 2 years later...  but..  you're very confused.  stdio.h is not what makes printf work, it just happens to contain a line like: int printf(const char*, ...);.  Assuming that this language would or should work the same way or drawing parallels to a C compiler or .NET is completely meaningless.  Likely it's called "stdio" simply because whoever came up with the thing just happened to call it that, not that there is anything magical about that name or that it ought or ought not to correlate with some other library. 174.21.7.133 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah, every .NET language uses the same framework, including specifically named libraries like System.IO, so the original poster is correct (though he may be wrong about LOLCODE actually being a .NET language). Equinox ◑ 17:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAN HAS STDIO? - Incorrect 

message: I just want to say, that after 30 years of programming, "KTNXBYE" has become my hands down favorite command of all time, because it made me laugh so hard when I first encountered it. Thank you to the author of LOLCODE! There really IS some "LOL" in LOLCODE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.91.37 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, indiscriminate etcetera concerns the scope of an article. LOLCODE is the only one of its kind - that I know of, at least - among esoteric programming languages, making it a representation of one extreme of what can be done with syntax. That's handy. It can also be useful to sociologists, programmers seeking inspiration, memetics or whatever that is called... these things tend to creep up on you.Anyway, if you're concerned about the frivolity of this article, I say that Wikipedia has no greater advantage than serious articles on ridiculous topics. That is an edge that no other reference work can match: we alone have the manpower and scope. If it's our dignity that worries you, then I'm afraid that we have Jimbo Wales on record referring to this project as a completely insane idea, so there's not much of that around to save :P --Kizor 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is what decides whether an article stays or goes, not some crazy wikipedia philosophy. Ninja337 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the deletionists that have descended on Wikipedia have a crazy philosophical interpretation of notability that is tearing Wikipedia apart. This shouldn't even need to be debated. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I’ve just found this article informative and thought provoking. It is also hilarious, but we aren’t deleting comedians from Wikipedia for that crime are we? Clearly deletion is entirely unconscionable and would be swiftly restored by this contributor. nemo (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  appropriateness 

message: KEEP THIS PLZ lol this programing language is so funny! please don't delete this! Costest (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DO NOT WANT DELETION! 

message: We might as well recognize "mudkip" "desu" etc as vital articles and make them pages of their own. --Dicttrshp (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. The main argument for retaining this article is that the subject is notable, as is demonstrated by the third party coverage that is cited in the article. The Internet culture Wikiproject has classified the article as mid-importance, so there is at least one community within Wikipedia that agrees that it is notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  SNUSP was deleted, maybe since it is not funny, even though it is notable as other esolangs (and more than LOLCODE I think, but how to prove it?); moreover, when I said that to a wikipediaer, he answered that there's a wiki for esolangs... so nothing's lost... then nothing's gained by wp. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: One passing reference in an online CNN article doesn't make it notable. The only people keeping this article up are the few people who waste their time coding in this.Ninja337 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As an example of the possibilities of syntax, and probably the only form of Literate Programming with a patois, this article is indispensable. Ignore the inherent humour of the subject – if Wikipedia covers Brainfuck it must cover LOLCODE. nemo (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be deleted?

message: It sounds ridicolous to me that such a language had no consensus for deletion, while SNUSP had! I want to keep both of course... but sadly SNUSP was deleted. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridicolous thoughts 

message: Wow, I simply can't believe Wikipedia has a separate source code formatting style for LOLCODE... JIP | Talk 19:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source code formatting 

message: To prove that a language is Turing complete, you only have to prove that it can emulate another Turing complete system. Since brainfuck is turing complete, a brainfuck interpreter in LOLCODE is emulating a turing complete system, thus LOLCODE is turing complete. Q T C 11:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was about to reinstate the removed (and sourced) sentence, when I saw that you had already done that. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turing Completeness 

message: User:Yserbius has proposed the merger of LOLCODE and various other esoteric programmic language articles to Esoteric programming language.
:Oppose this merger and all related merger proposals. These programming languages are already mentioned in esoteric programming language, with a short example of each one. If that article is expanded to include all the details in this and other language articles then it will be too long. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that there is little notability in LOLCODE or in any of the other languages proposed. Most of these seem to be one-off jokes, whose only references I can find to them are the creators page and massive lists of all programming languages ever. Is there any discussion of LOLCODE as an example of an esoteric language in a major publication, website or broadcast? Yserbius (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think the sources on this page (or any other article) establish notability then you should take the article to AfD. There was an AfD discussion on this article in 2009, with a solid consensus to keep, but consensus may of course change over time. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose this merger as well. The article has 20 references. I also agree with the points made by Gandalf61, so I will not repeat them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkenna (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose. If this language is notable in itself, there is no reason it cannot have its own article, and merging everything into esoteric programming language will then just serve to make that article unwieldy and unreadable. If this language is not sufficiently notable, then please propose it for deletion instead of merge. 132.229.236.30 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose. For all the above reasons. The detail afforded by its own page is necessary to answer the obvious questions raised by its existence at all. I found this page to be highly informative. nemo (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose. For all the above reasons. Lots of sources and informations are present in the current version. Koko90 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose. LOLCODE is one of the most notable esoteric languages out there, there are Emacs, Nano and Vi modes, it's in the list for syntax highlighting modes on Pastebin, it has it's own IRC channel (Two actually), and websites have actually been written in it. It's a notable language and, thus deserves it's own article. 96.51.223.95 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Since the switch from Geshi to Pygments for syntax highlighting (phab:T85794), support for 'lolcode' was unfortunately dropped, as can be seen with the plain text formatting on this page, and probably a few others like Esoteric programming language. If you want specialised 'lolcode' syntax highlight support again, it will need to be added to Pygments.   Alternatively, if there is another language which has similar syntax, we can add that as a fallback. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  lolcode syntax highlighting lost 

message: Whole article is about examples 
Blackdiamand (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not examples

message: In section 3, the mentioned ArnoldC language links to a page that does not (or no longer) mentions ArnoldC.
--Ai.unit (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  TJRC (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arnold C link is no longer valid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LOLCODE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711193759/http://forum.lolcode.com/viewtopic.php?id=51 to http://forum.lolcode.com/viewtopic.php?id=51
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002042159/http://lolcode.com/ to http://www.lolcode.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205180201/http://blip.tv/file/343052 to http://blip.tv/file/343052
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified