Jump to content

Talk:Lolcat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kimvais (talk | contribs) at 08:58, 11 December 2008 (is the page being vandalized enough to be semi-protected?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

iMac Lolcat

What an uninteresting lolcat... I suggest replacing it with something like this: File:Fats.jpg--Cadentsoul (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O HAI

The general format for "Oh, hi." in LOLcat has been "O HAI" as a standard. I think that the image used for the main photograph should be representative of this important part of LOLcat culture. CircleChess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.152.44 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Cat

I'm thinking that there should be mention (if not a separate section/page) for Ceiling Cat. It seems to me that Ceiling Cat is taking on quite a bit of a following. Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BY THAT LOGIC WE SHOULD GIVE SERIOUS CAT HIS OWN PAGE, BECAUSE SERIOUS CAT IS SERIOUS 99.164.109.224 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
loud user is loud
Unsigned comment is unsigned. Sorry, had to do that. Zell65 (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i has a flavor

Can we please discuss rather than edit warring? Two users have violated WP:3RR this evening re-adding and removing this link. Personally I'm not too bothered, but it does seem to fail WP:EL, how is it informative in any way that icanhascheezburger isn't? - Zeibura ( talk ) 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit warring activity has sprung from the influx of popularity of Ihasaflavor.com on the social bookmarking sites. I believe the difference is significant enough (both functionality and aesthetic-wise) to warrant a spot. Plus, it seems to be one of the first sites getting professional development attention (rather than just the blogosphere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.207.41 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no reason icanhascheezburger fits the bill and ihasaflavor.com violates it. They are both promoting lolcats via unique content and functionality, both advertising supported, both including community-driven features, both fulfilling the same requirements for WP:EL. Ihasaflavor is in a different league then the other sites that have popped up just aggregating content via a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.207.41 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest difference between the three links already there and ihasaflavor is that the three current links have been previously featured in news articles and other citations for months. This was discussed in a previous external links discussion and it was generally agreed upon that it was a good guideline to use to keep the external links from becoming overrun and turned into a linkfarm. --Desertdwell (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed upon between who? The proper criteria should be more towards original content and community promotion than PR. Sites like ihasaflavor.com are obviously attracting professional development and backing and should really be a part of this list. If it was another blog hack-job, then yes this would be a moot point, but it clearly isn't.

Find significant media coverage and it can be included. ViridaeTalk 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL says nothing about "significant media coverage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.207.41 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:EL *does* say: "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached." A consensus was reached by editors if you read further up, as already advised. --Desertdwell (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, too that popularity is not completely synonymous with notability. Just because the content or its presentation is unique doesn't make it notable. This is why the attention paid to it, and evidence of that, is required. This website is not the subject of the article, and does not appear to have notability as such; it further has little impact on the subject other than being another outlet for the phenomen. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL says that "personal webpages are normally to be avoided". What I seem to be gathering is that we ignore this guideline with icanhascheezburger (which does count as a personal webpage, as does any lolcat site) because it has media coverage as being one of the websites which helped the phenomenon become well known, whereas ihasaflavor hasn't, so it's just a personal webpage. Personally I don't see anything that makes it that different to a lolcat blog, only that you see pictures at random rather than in chronological order which they were made.

In any case, since people still haven't stopped edit warring, I've protected this page, that will expire in 2 days time or when we reach consensus here. - Zeibura ( talk ) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection. While personal webpages are to be avoided, once that page itself becomes notable, it would seem to fall under a different category: in this case the site has become notable for its press coverage regarding a subject that is also notable on its own on Wikipedia. The other site, while similar, has the unfortunate distinction of being indistinct in the Lolcat popularity contest. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I count 30 google news hits for icanhascheezburger, and 234,000 web hits (excluding duplicates). For ihasaflavor, no news hits, and only four web hits. And given that more than one of those google news hits focusses on icanhascheezburger, I would argue that that website passes WP:WEB and could be converted into a standalone article, rather than a redirect to this article. The lolcat bible project might pass as well. In that case, I would suggest creating articles for the sites that pass WP:WEB, using internal links to those articles in this article, and dumping the external links section altogether, becuase this problem is never going to be resolved otherwise. Resolute 20:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of dumping the external links section, come to think of it. It's not that icanhascheezburger is really "informative", external links are supposed to direct readers to more sources of information, rather than just pictures, so the idea of an external links section in the lolcat article doesn't seem quite right. Icanhascheezburger is actually linked to in the article (history section), so that should really be enough, but it probably can pass WP:WEB for its own article, and I've already created LOLCat Bible Translation Project, which, after being speedied despite being sourced and only narrowly surviving an AfD, is still here. The macrocats image gallery just looks like a blog to me. - Zeibura ( talk ) 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Meowy 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a short article on I Can Has Cheezburger?, and dumped the External links section. The lolcat websites with enough notability to pass WP:WEB now all have articles, so there is no need for external links on this article. Hopefully this will put an end to the constant attempts to add every lolcat site out there. Resolute 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.25.192.4 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)you are so wrong Resolute with your high and mighty decisions, it is a travesty that a page on lolcat would include links to icanhaz and no links to the actual domains lolcat.com and lolcats.com that are the namesakes of the whole phenomena, "there is no need for eternal links..." ???? in your opinion maybe... thanks for reverting my edit that had no link in it by the way, really really nice <sarcasm on> (by the way I am on a shared ip so don't attribute other edits on this account to me, I don't feel like signing on right at the moment)... this is not over Resolute[reply]

ICHC has numerous articles written about it, and it's impact on spreading the lolcat meme. If you can produce similar references to support lolcats.com, etc as having a similar impact on the growth of the mem, then by all means, please reinsert with the citation to the reliable source. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for external links. Resolute 16:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.25.192.4 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)so just because a site made money (through spamming and watermarking the previously made pictures mostly)which got them some media attention, suddenly they are authoritative and allowed to be linked to???, while the sites that are specifically carrying the namesake of the phenomenon and are specializing in this phenomenon are not allowed here? Resolute you are a pretentious misguided person. It is still a travesty that a wikipedia article on LOLCAT is not allowing links to lolcat.com but because of link and picture spamming which got a few media write ups suddenly icanhazcheezburger is allowed and authoritative????? give me a break.........[reply]

Whatever the origins of ICHC, lolcat.com and the other thousand clones, ICHC has coverage in reliable sources enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. lolcats.com does not. That this site named itself after the meme hardly makes it authorative either. If you wish to re-open the debate over the inclusion/exclusion of external links, that is your right. If consensus supports it, then the inclusion of external links of sites otherwise non-notable by Wikipedia standards will be revisited. Until then, restricting the article to notable websites helps prevent this article from becoming a linkfarm. Resolute 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.25.192.4 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)those notability guidelines you are quoting seem to have NOTHING to do with suitability for an external link, and if you were to apply such a strict approach to most of the articles on wikipedia, I would think that over half of them would not stand up... so why is lolcat topic different??? there are relevant websites out there that should be featured in an external link section, and lolcat.com and lolcats.com should definitely be here. 72.25.192.4 (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)the way I see it, namesake websites should be linked in the text of the article, probably like "the registration of the namesake domains lolcat.com and lolcats.com took place in 2006..." either way, they should be in the body of the text or in an external links section, perhaps both[reply]

The article is not about lolcats.com, so the registration date of a non-notable website is irrelevant to the article. External Links are to be kept to a minimum, and included only where necessary. Linking to lolcats.com adds nothing to this article that is not already conveyed by the article, it's images and internal links. Also, it would re-introduce the problem of this article turning into a linkfarm, which Wikipedia is not. Resolute 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lolcat?

"Lolcats are images combining photographs of animals, most frequently cats, with a subjectively humorous and idiosyncratic caption in broken English referred to as Kitty Pidgin, Kitteh, or lolspeak." Combining is bolded because sometimes people take cat photos and just add text. So I think we ought to add "or adding text to" making:

"Lolcats are images combining, or adding text to photographs of animals, most frequently cats, with a subjectively humorous and idiosyncratic caption in broken English referred to as Kitty Pidgin, Kitteh, or lolspeak."

Microman362 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Microman362, 1/30/07 9:58 Eastern Time[reply]

First came the cat, then came the photograph of the cat, then came the posting of said cat photo onto 4chan with the demand to "caption my cat", then came the captions, then came the verdict: win or fail, then the best survived, then came rip-off sites like icanhascheezburger to parasitically feed off other peoples material, then came the end of Caturday as a thing of joy. Meowy 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i.e, once upon a time, adding captions to your own cat photograph was seen as being very bad form. Meowy 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lolcats.com registration date proves nothing

I have removed the sentence:

The use of "lolcat" to describe the phenomenon was introduced no later than June 14 2006 when the domain name "lolcats.com" was registered. (ref. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=lolcats.com )

The domain name registration date tells us nothing about the subject matter of the site at that time. Had I thought of it at the time, I probably would have registered the domain in 2000, thinking "LOL, cats!" Spazdor (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the same thinking, you can't actually be sure that icanhascheezburger had pictures of cats when it first went online (it could have been selling cheeseburgers for all you know). Or that the World actually existed the day before you were born. However, the chances are that the World did exist before you were born, and lolcats.com was named after lolcats.Meowy 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cant Language

I was tempted to add the category Cant (language) to lolcat, primarily because lolspeak is redirected to this article. Two things stopped me from doing this. First, lolspeak isn't a cant as it isn't intended to be used to conceal meaning. Second, the Cant talk page contained an admonition to not add leet which is closer to a Cant than lolspeak. Any suggestions on what language form category lolspeak would fall into? Maybe "Category:Language varieties and styles"? DanRP (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link(s)

I suggest that Lolcats at Curlie would be good for the article. 76.100.145.247 (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category moved: http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Subcultures/Cyberculture/Memes/Image_Macros/Lolcats/ 128.231.88.5 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I made you a cookie/but I eated it"

The original photo of the Munchkin of "I made you a cookie/but I eated it" fame can be found at flickr. (Photoset)--165.21.154.91 (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Cat Split

The subject of whether Ceiling Cat should have its own article or not is a contentious one. It's been created and deleted many times. I think it's time to revisit that debate, as the Lolcat Bible has given Ceiling Cat quite a bit of secondary source notability.

News Article 1 News Article 2 News Article 3

This was just with a quick search of Google News. I know "google results are not notability", but ("ceiling cat" -post) on google has 100,000 hits now. Gigs (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOM NOM NOM

Why does Nom nom nom re-direct to this page, yet there is no mention of it? I believe this particular Internet meme should have its own page (or at least a stub) rather than be combined into the Lolcat article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Account (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOM NOM NOM originates from cookie monster of sesame street - not from lolcats - though OMNOMNOM and NOMNOMNOM have prevailed in LOLcats for last two years Kimvais (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if "nom nom nom" has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources to pass notability standards. I can't see it standing as an article in it's own right. Ditto fo celing cat above. Resolute 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prevalence equals notability. Both ceiling cat and nom nom nom memes are now very prevalent around the net. Of course citation needed, but that's just my take about notability. 85.250.230.56 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, notability equalis coverage in reliable sources. A mention here is one thing, but neither celing cat nor the "nom nom nom" text are deserving of their own articles. Resolute 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OM NOM NOM is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimvais (talk • contribs)

Section order

Is there any particular reason why the "format" section appears before the "history" section? I think the article would flow better if the two were reversed. An intro followed by some information about how it got all started, then delve into the format. It makes no sense to go into detail about the format before the reader even knows about the history. I visited this article to learn more about the history of it - I was already familiar with the format. Oldiesmann (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4chan Origin

The origins of this meme at 4chan that are "believed to be a lie" is contrary to the articles pointed to as reference. I guess some people don't want to believe their ripoff garbage started at 4chan. Airestorm (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that it started at 4chan then. Without proof you are just another Wikipedia troll. 75.62.40.223 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK prove it. --8bitJake (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. http://icanhascheezburger.com/about/ http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004442.html http://www.thestar.com/living/article/257955 http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/11/14/News/Iz.Not.Cats.Everywhere.Online.Trend.Spreads.Across.Campus-3099929.shtml http://time-blog.com/nerd_world/2007/07/16/ All of those links mention 4chan. I'd hope you consider those to be proof or credible sources since, well, they're all in the references section of the page. 98.234.47.166 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcats originated on 4chan. I don't care what the Wikipedia article says about it, or what any other source says, I know it originated on 4chan, for all the weight my opinion carries... Zell65 (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very roundabout way to express "zero". ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even called lolcats on 4chan, it was just on every saturday, they had Caturday, in which cat macros were posted. Some guy decided to steal the idea and call it lolcats. It originated on 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.44.2 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


the caturday concept caused some idiot to refer to these macros as lolcats. caturday came first, yet it describes the exact same thing. Honestly, anyone who has recently disagreed with the 4chan claim is beyond retarded. look at the article. there are 2 references for this claim. get it through your heads. your beloved cat macros began on the most foul place on the internet. you will never be able to get over this fact. soon enough, a class action will be brought against ICHCB due to their blatant copyright infringement (no fair use whatsoever). read the article before you comment, because you are talking straight out of your ass.

Feline evolution

In ancient times, natural selection favored traits that allowed cats to hunt with stealth, remain hidden in high grass, and reproduce rapidly.

Today, it favors traits that produce LOLZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.230.56 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called lulz. Lurk moar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.144.219 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IM IN UR WIKI, MAKIN UR ARTICLEZ

Ceiling Cat

Ceiling Cat is watching you edit Wikipedia. ViperSnake151 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Sewer Horse iz reverting ur edits. 217.132.2.164 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get back to school kids Ninja337 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

To the person who has been claiming that "lolcat" is pronounced "ell oh ell" cat, I completely disagree. Firstly, I don't pronounce it that way, and secondly if it wasn't pronounced "lol", where would the derived word "lulz" come from? --Slashme (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I've always heard it pronounced "lawlcat". Resolute 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right, it is pronounced "lawlcat". :3 Evan Detwiler 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimangreen13 (talk • contribs)

Uhhh...

Are individual memes really encyclopedic material? Really, this is like having an independent encyclopedia article for terms like "groovy" and "far out". Josterhage (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not like "groovy" and "far out", because those are slang words. MantisEars (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely encyclopedic material, as it is another example of the curious mechanics of internet memes, and arguably the best known of them. Zell65 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ceiling Cat here

I suggested this because Ceiling Cat seems not notable enough for its own article.--Hope of the Future (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Laugh-Out-Loud cats 1900's comic

I just stumbled upon this http://www.flickr.com/photos/apelad/collections/72157603486269567/ flicker collection that suggest there were lolcats in the 1900's, complete with lolspeak. 80.33.34.88 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Miguelanxo.[reply]

This "antique" collection is actually a spoof. The artist creatd the cartoons based on the Lolcat meme and created a fictional back-story. It has already been discussed on this page (now archived at here and here). -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter that he has a book of these comics coming out with Abrams ComicArts next year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.104.101 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors are removing the external link to http://icanhascheezburger.com/ from the article. TRS-80 pointed out that the site is already in the See Also section. But, in the See Also section we only have an internal link to the wikipedia article about icanhascheezburger.com; shouldn't we have a direct link from the lolcat article to the website as well? After all, that is what the article is about, and that website is probably the largest collection of lolcat images on the internet, making it the best primary source available for anyone who wants to know more about the subject of this article. Let me know what you guys think. --Politizer (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed in the past: /Archive_1#External_Links and /Archive_2#External_links. The consensus I got was none of the sites really met WP:EL, and not having an external links section stopped people spamming it. TRS-80 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a good point. Now that you mention that, I agree that it's probably best not to have an EL section in this article. Do you think, then, that this website should be mentioned in the History section or something? (I'm asking because, even though we do have I Can Has Cheezburger in the See Also section, that doesn't really tell the reader anything--a reader who doesn't know what that means will have no idea why it's in the See Also section or why they should click on it, and currently it's not really explained or defined anywhere in the article.) Thanks. --Politizer (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Image:Cat-cheezburgur-bird-2.jpg

This image was removed from the article by User:Ninja337 for violating icanhascheezburger.com's terms of use. Actually, the image was uploaded by its own creator (see the image page for details), although it was created using icanhascheezburger's page. So, just to clarify...is it fair use, or not? (Regardless, I would not support putting the image back into the article until we can write a better caption, anyway...the current caption, "lolcats are often associated with cheeseburgers," is close to OR and not really well-integrated with the article anyway; a caption in the form "A Lolcat image showing..." would be better.) Thanks, Politizer (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • IANAL, but based on the terms of use for icanhascheezburger.com, the image is a copyright violation. It uses ICHC's trademarked and copyrighted logos in its watermark (images with watermarks are frowned upon anyway). The general use section also states that written permission is required to redistribute images, even user submissions, and also that use for commercial purposes is not permitted. We already have several freely licenced lolcat images, so I can't see any means by which this would qualify for fair use. Though if someone wanted to use the original image, which is dual licenced GFDL/CC-BY-SA, and add the caption themselves, that's fair game. Resolute 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure it was self-made using IcanHazCheeseBurger.com, which probably makes it no longer free. (If you follow the link to the image, you will see that the user also has an older version that looks like he just did it in Paint or something, which is probably free, but ugly.) And you're right, it does come from another guy's photo, so it shouldn't be labelled PD...the guy's photo says it's ok to use it if you credit him (I had to add that info to the lolcat image), but I should probably also go in and chance the licensing on that lolcat image. --Politizer (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-comment structure in Lolcats

I was tempted to mention something in the Format section about how a lot of lolspeak seems to mirror topic-comment structure seen in some other languages (i.e., "Charisma, I has it" vs. "I have charisma," and "Bird watchin, yer doin it wrong" vs. "You're doing bird-watching wrong"), but as far as I can tell right now that would be OR. Does anyone know of legitimate sources (either already linked within the article, or not yet mentioned) in which someone is discussing lolspeak from a linguistic perspective and makes mention of topic-comment structure? --Politizer (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


references

In two places someone has put in "citation needed" tags in the middle of the sentence when the citation at the end of the sentence in fact covers this. It relates to this part of the article

The caption is intentionally written with deviations from standard English spelling and syntax,[citation needed] featuring "strangely-conjugated verbs, but a tendency to converge to a new set of rules in spelling and grammar."[5] These altered rules of English have been referred to as a type of pidgin[citation needed] or baby talk.[6]

I suggest that the citation needed tags are removed. Khawaga (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit it needs a greater amount of citations than a normal essay. Those articles don't prove that the "deviations from standard English" are "intentional", and they don't prove that the captions are a type of pidgin. I'm not a linguist but I think calling this stuff pidgin is incorrect so I'm going to get rid of it.Ninja337 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the articles provided are pretty insufficient. The only thing that's held me back from removing them entirely is that the sentence where the footnote is reads "These altered rules of English have been referred to as a type of pidgin or baby talk" [emphasis added]. The sources given don't prove at all that Lolspeak is a pidgin or is like baby talk, but they do offer examples of people referring to it as those things. Of course, whether or not that is really notable is another issue....and I think it probably isn't. If you want to remove that content from the article I will support you on that. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netrat's edits

Sorry, Netrat, but I agree with the editor who reverted you before; it has nothing to do with vandalism, but

  1. The information you introduced about "all your base are belong to use" and other phenomena is, inarguably, OR;
  2. The bukkit seal had been commented out because it, too, was OR
  3. Padonki was removed from that section and relocated to See Also in this edit. It is more appropriate to have it linked there.

I left your information about "all your base are belong to us" and similar things in the article, but I tagged it with {{or}}. Simply put, unless you can come up with a reliable 3rd-party source that draws a connection between any of those phenomena, your comments there are original research. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article ever reach GA status?

Its a very cute subject and one of the most looked at things in internet culture - MSN recently did a piece on LOLCat. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that's widely written about can easily become a GA. -- how do you turn this on 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that means no I guess. Ninja337 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it means yes. Lolcats have been written about plenty. This could easily get to GA status with some love and care. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Love and care won't procure a miracle. Ninja337 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

helpful source

salon's a little late on the uptake but it never hurts to have another RS. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/11/15/pathos_lolcats/index.html Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for the pointer; hopefully someone will get to work adding its info to the article soon and citing it to some of the things that aren't well-supported now. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing more pathetic than someone pretending to be what they so obviously are not. The creator of that article is such a person. He/she hasn't a clue about what he/she is writing about but, like some middle-aged parent trying to dance like their teenage offspring, continues on regardless of the extreme embarrassment caused to all. It's another example of old-media mid-life crisis. Meowy 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for that helpful commentary. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some help. Its author writes "Take the lolcat that started it all, created by a Hawaiian blogger named Eric Nakagawa, who posted it in January 2007." That claim is so false it defies any explanation other than the author hasn't a clue about what he/she is writing about. Meowy 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to other sources, that lolcat is what started the icanhascheezburger website; the article isn't claiming that that image started lolcats in general. The claim isn't false, just maybe unclear. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a subpage for sources for this topic, which I will be using ASAP to work this article to GA. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1905 lolcat

This is the second time recently that someone has added information about the 1905 lolcat to the article. While it was added in a much better manner this time than by the IP who did it before, I still have some doubts... specifically, as far as I can tell, the only source attesting to the date and provenance of this photo is icanhascheezburger.com, which is probably not a reliable source. I'm not going to remove the stuff outright, but I do think we need to at least scrutinize it a little more closely. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything available into the background of the image? Surely the image wasn't called a lolcat in 1905, but was just an amusing kitty pic? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at it in Photoshop; there's no metadata in it, and plenty of JPEG artifacts abound (both of which are common when using PS's "Save for web" feature; however, the DPI is 120, not 72, and none of this is a death nail for the picture, just my observations). There's also a rather oddly hard edge at the bottom step of the chair that seems out-of-place for a scan, but not for a photoshopped image. All in all, the thing smells too suspicious; I can has hoax? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray for skepticism! I support EVula's removal of the stuff. And I say next time someone re-adds it we punch them in the stomach! Woohoo! —Politizer talk/contribs 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(actually I guess removing it would be fine, too, if punching in the stomach is too mean). —Politizer talk/contribs 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research on the 'hoax' accusations(?) - Looks like "The Rotograph Company" speciacilized in Lolcats in early 20th century - google search with "rotograph company cat" results with multiple items with kittens with captions for sale on eBay etc [1][2]

The pictures seem to have been taken by a man named Harry Whittier Frees who was specifically hired by the company to photograph lolcats and dogs [3] — Kinki (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing images

There were starting to be way more images in the article than is necessary, so I boldly removed the ones that I think were contributing the least. Specifically, I removed the two images reproduced below:

A lolcat asking for a cheeseburger
File:NH FlatskyWhat.jpg
A lolcat depicting a confused cat

I chose to remove them and not the others because they weren't illustrative of any particular lolcat grammar or weird poses and yada yada; they were both rather ordinary cat pictures that happened to have text on them. The ones that I left are illustrating something more particular, I think; the iMac one and the Wikipedia one both show cats that seem to be interacting with something, and have typical lolcat grammar. The "1905" image I left in because there would be controversy if I remove it right now, but for the record I still think that whole thing shouldn't be included in the article.

Please, don't anyone come and complain about how the particular lolcat images I left in the article are less "interesting" than the ones I took out or that they aren't as "funny," because I don't care and no one else does either. How interesting or funny a lolcat is is entirely subjective and people will argue about it forever, no matter what image you put in. The inclusion criteria for an image here should not be how funny it is, but whether or not it illustrates something specific in the article. I will ignore any comments about which images are more interesting, and I venture to guess everyone else watching the article will also ignore those comments. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laibach kittens

Not strictly Lolcat, but made me LOL: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.139.239 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

Looks like the page is being quite repeatedly vandalised. As a newbie to WP I do not know how repeated the vandalism needs to be for semi-protection, but looks like there has been immature and stupid edits by anonymous users almost daily. Kudos to Politizer for reverting those edits timely (and repeatedly). kinki (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolcat&oldid=257242365"