Talk:Lolcat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

LOLCODE

Might want to merge LOLCode into this or make LOLCode a good bit better. -- Archeus 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

absolutely not. LOLCODE is a programming language, while Lolcat is a meme. Though the language is inspired by Lolcat, they are too completely different entities. Would you merge the article for the Python language with Monty Python (which it is named for)? 71.61.15.192 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

yes. totally totally totally shouldn't be merged. related things, but fundamentally different. lolcode is an awesome concept to nerds, but someone looking up lolcats is would be getting their time wasted with a big slab on lolcode. information buried inside useless information is information diminished

LOLCode appears to have been deleted. --10:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend a link and a senctence describing the linkage between them, much like how it is done in the Monty Python article, to use your example. Sphonix 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "python" is mentioned, not the pthyon programming language. Your suggestion has merit, but we have no obligation to accommodate the location of information about LOLCODE in the Lolcat article, when enough sources exist for the former. Gracenotes^T § 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I suggest this page be moved to Cat Macro or LOLcat. Kittah just doesn't cut it, and lolcat gets more google results. --General Miaow Say Hello! 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree about lolcat being a better link. either way, this article should include mention of walri and bukkits--Shadebug 08:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

pics plzSkomorokh 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

incredibly stupid, on so many levels. please VFD. --Wedge 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this has become a fairly popular and prevalent activity over the last few months...if it was just a flash-in-the-pan thing, there probably wouldn't be as many websites dedicated to it. It's a fad, to be sure, but I say leave it alone for now. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, i started an Afd thingy. You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. --Wedge 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What you can't delete this page it documents an internet phenomenon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.18.241 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 April 2007

wtf. photos of cats, with grammatically erroneous text... "popularized" by the pedophilic messageboard, you believe this is encyclopedic material because... why? so you can be "in" on the "joke"? because web-loggers have discussed it? perhaps wikipedia could simply mirror every stupid half-retarded thing that gets posted at. and then hey, maybe "bloggers" will start talking about {whatever stupid/cutesy thing}, and wikipedia could cite them for talking about that. omg yes, "lolcats" is so very important, meaningful, and noteworthy... surely it deserves to be preserved forever in the annals of human internet knowledge! --Wedge 01:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is no more or less worthy than many other internet memes. It's sourced, it's documented, it survived the AfD process, it's in. "Calm down, have some dip." Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Information

I'M IN UR X Ying your Z: likely started from a Counterstrike screen capture.

That comment is totally wrong, this was based off Starcraft, which one person would be in the enemy base and would joke, "I'm in ur base, killing ur doods". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.20.148 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm in ur comment, fixin ur bold tags 142.59.172.187 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the citation even states that, one definition down.

The 'started in 2006' part is also inaccurate. This phrase was being used at least as early as 2004[1], if not before that. Nobody seems to have a record of the original usage (probably from StarCraft), though. Terraxos 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Merge Proposal - Merge from Caturday

Stuff goes here. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing there that needed merging, as "caturday" is already mentioned here. Redirected Caturday to Lolcat. —ptk✰fgs 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Short and sweet, I like it. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This source may be useful for supplementing or replacing one of our existing sources: http://www.charlotte.com/171/story/123446.html —ptk✰fgs 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This essay was featured on icanhascheezeburger as well as boingboing: http://www.zerosummind.com/2007/05/l337-katz0rz.html It goes into a deeper cultural and sociological analysis of the lolcats meme and would be a great source for more information.68.63.223.158 07:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this: [3]. Unfortunately I have no idea what newspaper it's from. Bryan Derksen 07:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks like this article from the Houston Chronicle. It's already been used as a reference here. WarpstarRider 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Caturday

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

Some admin banned me from editing this discussion because I was apparently using a sock puppet in my editing. I guess he thought I was posing as two people when I haven't and if it appears that I have, it would be down to the fact that I have a dynamic IP address and well, I'm not registered to this website so I don't sign my comments either. Whatever, the guy wrongly banned my old ip. Good effort wikipedians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.5.105 (talk • contribs).

Lol*

The LOL* meme has spread far beyond cats - http://laughingsquid.com/roll-your-own-lol-not-just-for-cats-anymore/ - star trek, geeks, burning man, code, robots, rocky horror, porn, LOST, NIN, science, librarians etc. What should we do, add a section on derivatives?

I've tried to initiate a discussion below about whether there there should be any mention of derivatives, let alone a section. Gracenotes^T § 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

It's my opinion that it would be worth coming to a talk-page consensus on what external links are appropriate in this article, as it appears to be a popular target for additions. The only one I think is clearly key is I Can Has Cheezburger, but I'd be open to discussion on which others should also be included. JavaTenor 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Lolcat image gallery and Macrocats.com sites are appropriate as each appears to be updated regularly and are different enough to not be redundant. Desertdwell 02:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

tehcats has the largest collection of LOLcat images out there.

Just a quick not to say that I have added an external link to a site I made allowing people to translate English into "lolcat". I feel this is genuinely useful to this article. However, my link has already been removed by the owner of a similar, and arguably not as relevant, site. Mattsephton 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See also [New External Link Proposals] at the bottom of this talk page.

It's a Trap

I'm uncertain about this, so I haven't put it in the article; but isn't "It's a trap" said by Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? Is that the true origin of this meme? Fëaluinix 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a trap is used by 4chan users when a character with an ambiguous gender is posted up. Trap being a guy who looks like a guy. It's not really related with caturday and the corresponding image macros

That's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear that phrase...I don't know of any other pop culture item where it occurs off the top of my head. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Star Wars movie is the source, and cannot think of another possible one. It's impossible to attribute that meme, but there's at least half a chance of verifing it. (Although, I am a fan of the "tarp" variation). Gracenotes^T § 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Its my understanding that that particular meme emerged from Something Awful. Perhaps somebody who is foolish enough to pay for access there can confirm. Snarfies 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Even if any users from that website claim that it does, it didn't. 4chan much? - Anonymous I'm not sure whether Admiral Ackbar's infamous "It's a Trap!" directly inspired the phrase, but on 4chan, a "trap" means a woman who appears to be male in some way. The image of Ackbar on his Wiki page is often seen with text added to emphasise a 4chan user's certainty that a person in an image is not the gender they claim to be.

Removal of info

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

Renaming to Caturday

More discussion

The problem with this is due to the very nature of how the chan boards (especially with rules 1 and 2) work means that it is very difficult to prove (with evidence) that the term Caturday predates that of Lolcats. Obiviously some of those in here have been around the chans long enough to of experienced Caturday before the term lolcats was even termed. But the acknolegement that the chans created Caturday should in itself prove that it predated Lolcats by the simple fact that the original images were the inspiration for Lolcats. DuO 14:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Though I didn't participate, a raid on lolcats.com was organized on 4chan and DDoS was utilized as a method of attack simply because /b/ was so angry that the lolcats guy used all of 4chan's cat macros without giving credit. They actually managed to take down the site for a while. I'm doing my best to find a concrete source to verify the origins of Caturday. Keep in mind, though, that Caturday is a widely-recognized meme on /b/, and that it's pretty darn frustrating to have people copy memes, especially Caturday and Cat Macros, without giving credit to 4chan. The relatively easy access that lolcats.com provides means that it gets viewed more often by the general public, not usually privy to 4chan's memes. Certainly wikipedia shouldn't put up with bad info- a source must be found tracing cat macros to 4chan and caturday.GravyFish 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I finally found a source connecting cat macros and "caturday," but /b/ just DDoS'd it. Maybe http://www.caturday.ca will be back up at some point.GravyFish 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose we should have left that one up. Perhaps the current war belongs in wiki? Pay careful attention to major 'lolcats' Cat Macro meme theft sites, I am sure you will notice a sudden trend. Examples: caturday.ca, lolcatsr.com, lolcats2.com, and soon roflcats.com and lolcats.com (lolcats.com being the scum of all evil, in the eyes of Anonymous (rules 1 and 2 have been well violated here, it is essentail, if Legion feels this comment is misplaced, delete it and message me)

Cat Macros have become so mainstream any more that at this point, rules 1 & 2 aren't as important as at least getting the darn name right. Somebody in /t/ posted a link to "more than 500 lolcats." He got facepalm.jpg and fail in response. I have screenshots now of people referring to Caturday and Cat Macros, but I'm not sure if anything from 4chan will count as a solid source. GravyFish 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another vote to change it to Caturday. LOLcats was coined by the media, and was not the original name. Klosterdev 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The "original" name is not the question; Wikipedia guidelines (WP:TITLE) provide that the article should be named what would be most commonly used by English-speaking readers. It's not a question of what came first, or "honoring the creators", or anything like that, but instead, simplicity and what is most widely-used by the public and by the mass media and sources. In addition, "Caturday" appears to refer specifically to a 4chan meme, rather than to the phenomenon of humorous cat macros in general. There's no need to change the name, and in fact it would be both imprecise and against naming guidelines to do so. --MCB 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Caturday. End of discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.104.62 (talk • contribs).

Disagree with first statement; agree with second one. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's standards and 4chan's standards (in the area of naming conventions) conflict heavily with each other. Wikipedia usually uses the most common name; 4chan is a bit more self-serving. Gracenotes^T § 20:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

LOLCode?!

Why in the merry hell does LOLCode (an esoteric programming language) redirect to a page about funny pictures of cats? I mean I know the lolcat image macro was the basis of the joke in LOLCode, but this page doesn't even make reference to it! LOLCode is a large enough topic for a page in it's own right, isn't it? Patch86 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Lolcode and note your concerns there, hopefully pointing to verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. MrZaius^talk 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

4chan Reference

I think that even if the name of Lolcat is not changed, a reference to 4chan as the origin of Lolcat, possibly referencing to Im in ur box etc and Longcat, which appeared around the time Caturday took off on /b/, is in order. The reference is fine on the image macro page and I don't see why it hasn't been added to the article already.

Redirection?

There are occasionally a few reasons for making an article a redirect without discussion and consensus, but I don't see any of them here. After a difficult start, the article is certainly encyclopedic at present, and well-cited to multiple reliable sources, including Slate, the Houston Chronicle, Wired, and two academic sources. It has also survived an AfD. Like a large number of other articles, it tends to attract inapproriate links (most of them merely not useful, rather than being self-promotional or spam); that's not a reason to (in effect) delete it. If you feel you have a strong case for redirection, make it here. Thanks, --MCB 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking as an outside participant (my only contribution to this article was the reversion of a merge tag removal that I don't even remember doing) this is effectively a deletion as far as I can see. There really isn't much information specifically about lolcats in the image macro page and what was here was heavily referenced. There should be some discussion about redirection first. Bryan Derksen 05:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If there's going to be a revert war over this I'm going to protect the article. I'd suggest that the pro-redirection folks actually participate in this talk page discussion. Bryan Derksen 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that would be a positive step. JavaTenor 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I only reverted the un-redirection as it was reverted (if you can't understand that, check the history) by a suspected single-purpose account with no edit summary or discussion. In my opinion this article is best merged into Image macro but I suppose that needs to go through process. Thanks to whoever cited the notability/inclusion of the EL, I saw no outside links to anything but cheezburger in the articles but I suppose I was mistaken. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's a merge, not a redirection, the cited and encyclopaedic part of this article already exists at image macro, along with other examples (which makes it better for the reader because it discusses the whole concept not just this one example of it). This article is pretty much ED material, in many of its revisions anyway. Some people seem to be having difficulty distinguishing an encyclopaedic treatment of image macros, and an example thereof, from "LOL! Lolcat Is teh rock!" Process? Fuck process, we should simply be bold. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  Seems primarily like an argument of cruft, which I agree with (the section in image macro does seem to be more clear). Perhaps mentioning the distorted grammatical rule of cat macros in the lolcat section of image macro will be enough - it seems to be a notable undercurrent that has been referenced. The talk of fonts and esoteric programming language really isn't encyclopedic, even if it is well cited. I'd normally agree with you on the whole "fuck process, be bold" thing but people seem to be making a big deal out of it at AN/I so I'm not sure what to think at this point. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the content of ED was meant to have any effect as to what we did on wikipedia.Geni 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. However, we are not an indiscriminate list of information such as listing appropriate fonts, speculation on grammar forms and relation to existing language, and other nonsense that while citable isn't necessarily encyclopedic. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't matter when the AfD was so overwhelmingly in favour of this article existing. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was loaded with massive amounts of meatpuppets and the vast majority of the legitimate arguments were for the existence of the term and its notability, not that it deserves a separate article. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The result was clearly to keep the article and not to merge it. Take away all the unacceptable votes and you will still have the same result. violet/riga (t) 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument was that this term has enough notability to stand as its own article, so I am not sure what you are getting at here. Personally, I find the lolcat phenomenon to be even greater than O Rly?. Image macros have been around for a while. So have pidgin languages. The lolcat thing has incorporated both, and exceeded both, by going mainstream. This meme has surpassed its origins such that a two or three line mention in image macro doesn't adequately cover the topic. IMO, it belongs as its own article. Like most wikipedia articles, however, it could benifit from a little cleanup. Resolute 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Process? Fuck process, we should simply be bold." All that I can read out of this is "Fuck the people who disagree with me." Bizarre. --MichaelLinnear 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bold-revert-discuss is an effective process, but it's not carte blanche to continue reverting in the face of opposition. Right up top at number 2. it says "DO NOT Revert back!" —dgies^t_c 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Merge

There is nothing here that cannot be elaborated upon at Image macro. This article covers about three memes that I can see: "INVISIBLE BICYCLE", "IM IN UR X Y-ING UR Z", and just silly pictures of cats with words written over it. This singular meme does not beget encyclopedic coverage, despite "serious" coverage in newspapers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - Popped off your merge template before seeing this comment, as its discuss link was aimed at the target page. If you repost it, you may want to move this talk there, although it seems more reasonable to discuss it here before reposting the proposed merge template. Personally, considering that daughter phenomena like lolcode have sprung directly off of this one and the number of citations that refer to the meme as lolcat and not an image macro, it seems more reasonable to maintain seperate coverage here. MrZaius^talk 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• While Lolcats are a type of image macro, they comprise a notable (as shown by numerous mainstream references) class of their own. The majority of the article is not content which belongs at image macro, vis the various snowclones, "Caturday", LOLcode, cuteness, and pigdin English. I'll also note that most of the mainstream sources do not refer to these as image macros. I think seeing them primarily as an image macro and only incidentally a funny cat picture may be a systemic bias from having a relatively internet-savvy group editing Wikipedia. —dgies^t_c 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as per Dgies and for reasons in above section ("Redirect?"). --MCB 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• War of the satellites, this really comes down to: how much material do we have have discussing the unique aspects of this phenomenon? Mostly that will mean the unusual syntax and spelling patterns. If there's enough to support an article, then it should be here. If there's not, a couple of sentences about odd language won't break up Image macro too badly. —ptk✰fgs 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think there is enough there to keep the article as is. The O RLY owl and the Lolcats are the two most common of the image macros and therefore IMO warrant an article of their own. That would change if few references could be found, but there is plenty of references so it is fine as is. Viridae^Talk 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The content can be merged seamlessly, but having it at Image macro doesn't do justice to the concept of a lolcat. Which has been noted a fair amount (as a distinct phenomenon, not merely as a subset of image macros). Gracenotes^T § 05:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think there's enough material here to support a standalone article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

referencing 4chan

The source here [5] says that "the phenomenon of funny cat pictures began on one particular web image board. I’m not going to give the name of the board as it’s an board where people can post anonymously, so there’s frequently content there I don’t want to endorse." Now, I know for a fact this "particular web image board" refers to the /b/ board on 4chan. Anyone who frequents that board will know that this is the case. However because the author unfortunately hasn't given the name, we can't use it as a source to mention the 4chan origin of this tradition. So does anyone have a site, similar to this one, that *does* explicitly mention 4chan? --Krsont 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He's just a blogger - Hit him up to post a little update to the page and explicitly specify the "one particular image board." He's not all that likely to turn you down. Not every day some recreational etymologist's blog gets the coverage we're giving it here. MrZaius^talk 11:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed him for clarification. Does an email count as a source? Will he need to post it as a blog? --Krsont 11:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither are reliable sources and should not really be used. If you can find a media source for it, then go ahead. Viridae^Talk 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If the blog is not a reliable source, why is it already sourced in this article in the first place? --Krsont 12:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because it IS there, doesn't mean it should be. See [6]. Viridae^Talk 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hay guise

You know this is in fact a 4chan meme, right? It has been used by 4chan users for a very long time, but a lot of sites have claimed hat they invented these image macros. So, for all you out there that are claiming it; FUN IGGERS LOLOLOL There should at least be some reference to 4chan.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollen (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 July 2007

Mentioned at image macro. It's not like 4chan is a particularly obscure site that we hadn't heard of. Chris Cunningham 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

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

Magazine article

Once the source for this is found, it shall be added. –Pomte 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642897,00.html - Google, baby. MrZaius^talk 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Coining of "lolcat"

This "phrase" however much hated was infact coined by www.lolcats.com which was registered on 6/14/2006, and then becoming the first site to exclusively dedicate itself to showing humourous pictures of cats with captions. I believe it was made by a 4channer, but as I'm not too deep in the history of it I couldn't say that for sure. But I do know that this was the first site to refer to them as lolcats. CharlieUK 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no way "lolcat" was coined by a 4channer, nor the domain registered by a 4channer. Upon discovery of the site, the fact that many images that had their origins in /b/ were found on the site with lolcats.com tags pasted on them infuriated the *chan userbase and the site had the shit raided out of it. Eventually, /b/tards got ahold of the admin user:pass for the site and posted it on 4chan. For the next couple of days, Anonymous deleted the entire database, uploaded chid porn, scat porn, various shock images, renamed folders, then deleted it all and started over, rinse, repeat. Eventually, after the raid, the lolcats.com domain directed to nothing more than a white page with lolcats.com printed on it, if i recall. 72.130.19.180 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because the disgusting word "lolcat" is a fabricated term, produced probably for financial gain, and trys to usurp the perfectly perfect "caturday" doesnt mean that it wasn't coined by some 4channer! Meowy 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not a white page anymore. But maybe that will be a way to get this page renamed Caturday, since "Lolcats" is clearly a commercial enterprise, the name was coined by them, and blatant advertising is (unless you give a big donation to wikipedia) supposedly forbidden here. Meowy 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that this article will be renamed, as Wikipedia's naming conventions is that the most common name is used. The meme is known to the world as "lolcats", so the issue is pretty much dead, regardless of the origins of the terms. Resolute 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but you wouldn't have the Wiki page for acetaminophen link to the product "Tylenol." I'd say that, to be fair, the Wiki page for LOLcats should cover only the commercial enterprise LOLcats; it's not like that guy invented the cat macro. Additionally, MrZaius has said, above, that "if you have a hard source that you can use to demonstrate that Caturday predates lolcats..." which has been demonstrated. Really, the only thing you're doing is branding (and giving creedence to) the fact that whoever created lolcats.com created the meme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.103.209.45 (talk • contribs).

Actually, the mass media has already given creedence to the brand "lolcat", Wikipedia is simply parroting what reliable sources are already saying. The wiki page covers what is written about in those reliable sources. Outside of 4chan, the meme is almost universally known as lolcats. That is what Wikipedia is conveying. The Tylenol/acetaminophen comparison is invalid, because while the former article speaks to a commercial use of the drug, the latter article speaks to the science behind the drug. They are separate, albeit related, concepts. There is no practical difference between a "caturday" image, and a "lolcat" image. They are the same thing. Resolute 05:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Popular Culture References to Lolcats

Is it advisable to create a new heading with references to popular culture uses of the Lolcats "phenom". For example, the popular webcomic "Achewood" has a current storyline that parodies Lolcats. http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07172007 Calydon 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. Wikipedia frowns on trivia, and that is pretty much all that ...in popular culture sections and articles are. Resolute 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

lolcode

Just for the record, this is where I'm getting the post-delete notion that lolcode is best covered here: [7]. Haven't hunted down the deletion review yet, but note that in the initial AfD for lolcode (found here), roughly half of the users calling for "delete" also called for a merge here, or, as I stated myself in that debate "cursory mention" here. Considering that the lolcode coverage is only lengthy enough to cover the link between the topics and contain a small clip of syntax that illustrates points made elsewhere in the article, and, above all else, considering that it has gained major media coverage, I really don't see why we shouldn't retain the current lolcode section. MrZaius^talk 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_12. Looks like it was closed with deletion endorsed, but there seem to be a fair number of admins preserving the redirect nonetheless. Not exactly clear cut, although, of course, deletion of lolcode in no way prohibits its coverage here, as I understand it. MrZaius^talk 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

History

Oh hi. Since I can't edit ur article, perhaps someone would like to add the following to the end of the History section?

Photographs of cats (and other animals) accompanied by humorous anthropomorphic captions predate the Internet by many years. In the 1970s a series of such posters was popular in the UK, including one of a cat captioned as "Work fascinates me... I can sit and stare at it for hours".

Matt 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Be happy to, if it could be sourced. Any idea who published the posters? That would be a good place to start looking. On a related note, why on earth was the article semi-protected without being flagged by the relevant template? MrZaius^talk 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The cat hanging onto a branch "Oh shit" posters well predate lolcats.

Great. Where's the sourced info that we can use in the article? MrZaius^talk 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea, because I have only ever seen them in aging homes with an 80s style decor. Viridae^Talk 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Laugh-Out-Loud Cats

The artist Adam Koford has created a fictionalised "history" of the lolcat which started out as "The Laugh-Out-Loud Cats" in a cartoon series drawn by his grandfather in 1912-1913. Is there a place for this in the article? The images (see below for link) are clearly inspired by the lolcat meme and encompass several other internet memes. Unfortunately the licence is non-commercial and not compatible with Wikipedia so uploading one of the images would not be possible.

External Links:

• the images on flickr
• tha artist's blog

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- A link to this should be added to the main page, perhaps under the heading of "See also". Any objections? Trevor Wennblom 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

- A section on the laugh-out-loud cats should be added to this page, with full disclosure of the fictionalized nature of the "history" of the strip, as this is no doubt the article that people will turn to to find out about the internet comic. Cranialsodomy 15:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See the apelad's nonsense section below. A couple of sentences worked just fine in the history section, flow-wise, but the sources didn't hold water. Give us a print or otherwise Wikipedia:Reliable source, and I'll gladly pop it back in. MrZaius^talk 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

If we can get a source to back up one pronunciation over the other, please feel free to introduce back the use of "an" before lolcat and explain it in the article, but, barring a source, it seems safer to just stick with the assumption that it's pronounced phonetically. Doesn't really seem likely that there will be any sort of authoritative source, given our lack of knowledge about who coined the term and given its changing nature/growing frequency/spread into mainstream culture/lack of audio media, aside from a handful of latecomers. MrZaius^talk 12:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, as a portmaneau of "lol" and "cat", the parts would be said as they normally would, and given that "lol" is an acronym (and is almost always heard in public pronounced El Oh El, as an acronym- be it the news or anything else) saying "An" would be correct. While, yes, there are people that pronounce lol as lull or lawl, the vast majority say L, O, and L, and that is the pronunciation Wikipedia should use. In addition, please don't revert an edit to a page like you did based on nothing but your opinion, quite a few WP:LAME edit wars have erupted from actions like that. -L^ie! 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening to edit war over this? Viridae^Talk 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm stating a fact. People reverting based on their opinion of something causes a lot of extremely lame edit wars --L^ie! 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit waring requires you to revert to your version, which was entirely YOUR opinion in the first place. Until there is solid evidence for one way of pronunciation or the other, how about we leave it was. Viridae^Talk 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that reverting edits you don't like BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME OPINION AS YOU LEADS TO A LOT OF EDIT WARS, AND NOT TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE. THAT SIMPLE! Anyway, there is plenty of solid evidence in favor of promoting El Oh El, mainly the fact that IT IS AN ACRONYM. I removed a/an entirely, since it's not really needed anyway, and it's just going to cause fights --L^ie! 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All reliable sources that I can find that use an indefinite article before "lolcat" use "a," not "an." See [8] and [9] for examples. We're not supposed to be speculating on usage, as that would be original research; if reliable sources use "a," we should be using "a." Krimpet 14:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aie - All I was saying was that if you contest the points that Krimpet made, please do so in the article proper and with sources instead of just the edit summary. MrZaius^talk 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Apelad's nonsense?

Instead of starting a revert war, I want to ask: Is tracing the lolcat's origins back to 1912 "nonsense"? I feel that it is relevant to the article. Ivansanchez 10:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Longing.... 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, didn't realize that it was a (clever) hoax. My apologies. Ivansanchez 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, at least it's a funny hoax. Could be worse. For future reference, read through WP:RS. This sort of stuff is why we don't trust blogs. And generally anything on april 1st --Longing.... 11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly appropriate to cover notable satire, however: [10]. Doesn't meet the threshold for separate coverage, but it can be described in-article without HTML comments and result in a stronger article. MrZaius^talk 14:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bullshit is not appropriate for Wikipedia". LOL. Meowy 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New External Link Proposals

The article says to discuss on the talk page before adding additional links, so here are a couple of proposed links to add:

• Lolcat Language Translator
• The lolcat Bible: wiki project to translate the Bible into lolcat

--Modemac 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Katurday.com is also a good possible candidate for inclusion in the External Links. That site is compiling a large database of LOLCat images, and differs enough from the other listed sites (which usually consist of typical blog postings) to warrant inclusion.

• Katurday.com - LOLCat Image Database

--Phoric 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Were they not mentioned in third party news sources, most of the external links currently in the article would be good candidates for removal under WP:EL - the Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information/a linkfarm/somethin' built to promote commercial sites. Of the links above, one, Katurday, is ad supported and just a collection of lolcat images, and the other two, while interesting are not directly mentioned or directly related to anything discussed in the article proper. That said, all of those and the links that we currently list would be great candidates for a DMOZ/open directory submission. Hit them up to create a lolcat category and link to all of them, if they haven't already. MrZaius^talk 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikipedia is not a link farm, I would also suggest that if we are excluding links on the criteria that they commercial promotions or are ad-supported, then the ICanHasCheeseburger, Macrocats, and LOLCats sites (which are currently included in External Links) should be the first to go, since these sites are entirely based on advertisement revenue. On the ICanHasCheeseburger homepage, I counted at least 16 seperate ad banners on the main page alone. Such sites have many more ads displayed than sites such as Katurday.com, which in comparison, is quite clean and has only a single ad-space, is dedicated solely to the posting of LOLCat images, and is therefore arguably quite relevant. --Phoric 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided suggests that Blogs (#11) would not fit the criteria for external links, nor would a site with 'objectionable amounts of advertising' (#5), both of which would include ICanHasCheeseburger (which is both a blog and heavily laden with ads), but not Katurday.com. As in my previous comments above, ICanHasCheeseburger has numerous amounts of ads and no doubt benefits monetarily from being listed in the wiki. --Phoric 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Hueg problems in Accuracy

There are a lot of untrue and misguided things in this article due to bad sourcing. Lolcats is not "image macros combining photographs of a cat with a humorous and idiosyncratic caption". Lolcats is a website owned by some guy that started collecting image macros, and then began getting a lot of traffic. The news articles and blog posts are a load of creative journalism. Many of the journalists have no idea what they are talking about, caturday comes from 4chan, everyone else is just piggybacking.Ninja337 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the origin, "lolcat" has become synonymous with cat macros. The origin of the term does not change the fact that it is what the meme is known as to the public at large. Resolute 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any source that backs that claim up.Ninja337 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

origin of bad grammar/poor spelling associated with cats

A post by user "Mofaha" on the b3ta.com imageboard in October 2004 utilised this trope [11]. Are there any older references? --Krsont 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, saying "the oldest thing we could find was xxx" is WP:OR --Lucid 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)