Talk:Internet slang

Where's the List of Internet Slang?!

I remember a list some time ago, but when I searched for it, it said it was moved to wikitionary, but there's no article there. Does ANYONE know what happened to it?? Abcw12 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's at wikt:Appendix:Internet slang, you can also click the Wiktionary link in the box at the top right of the article to go there. PaleAqua 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, why was this bumped off to wiktionary? There was no need for that. Modest Genius ^talk 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The request for deletion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases (3rd nomination). The result was transwikify and delete. I still think that a few of the more commonly used and properly sourced entries should have been merged into this article as a mini glossary. PaleAqua (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not a manual or a how-to guide to answer any further questions. нмŵוτнτ 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. I'm gonna look at that discussion, because it's still a LIST of things in my opinion. P.S. That article wasn't there when I wrote this question. Abcw12 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about archiving this.... --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that the article direct people to internetslang.com It has defenitions of most, if not all, internet slang. 63.140.104.240 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was just thinking it might be a good idea to lock this to all outsiders who are not members, in the past few days theres been a whole bunch of vandalism, and it's not helping this article at all. Opinions? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I just cleanup a load of **** and am still considering CSMF ?? (Think it needs deleting). Yes, Request Page Protection. Triwbe (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I do that? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization (of the list)

so, I was was wondering if it would be ok with everyone to remake the list of common terms and make it so it is in Alphabetical order, if not would it be ok to have it done so that they are in groups (for example gg (good Game) would also be with gl (Good Luck) since they would be used together. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be not list, per Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:NOT#MANUAL). нмŵוτнτ 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A list of widely used internet abbreviations is NOT in any way a "manual, guidebook or textbook". That it is not a textbook should be clear. If one would add examples of when to use which 'slang term' in which manner, then it would be a guidebook. A list of abbreviations and a simple explanation of what it means does not guide the reader to do anything. Therefore the guideline WP:NOT#MANUAL is not immediately applicable here.77.249.119.206 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

HAWT

Where is the page on horizontal axis wind turbine? HAWT? I search and it came here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.114.182 (talk • contribs)

HAWT currently has no page, it is hawt that redirects to here. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of list of commonly used slang

I think this is a ridiculous decision, as there is no page on Wikipedia that covers this topic. There is one page in WIKTIONARY, but it is common knowledge that the general public mostly access WIKIPEDIA, and very few use Wiktionary. If you are trying to rob people of their easily accessible knowledge, then removing the list of slang is definitely the way to go rather than "Oh, well there's a page on wiktionary (which no one uses therefore will never find) so I guess I'll just remove this list and be a good boy robbing people of educational resources." You are taking 50% of the article out and also the most informative and practically useful part, as I think that the term 'Internet Slang' is pretty self explanitory and people would rather a list of words to use than a boring list explaining internet slang. Removing this list will more than likely turn people away to other sites such as UD etcetera. The City 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about getting more readership nor is it a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. UrbanDictionary is a great resource for that sort of information and I, for one, am more than happy for people to use it as a resource. Having it on Wikipedia, however, means that there is a lot of original research and it just gets out of hand regarding what should and shouldn't be on the list, like the older pages when there was one. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I still disagree. Everyone would just yell at me and block me if I actually added the list of "common internet slang"

Common examples are "OMG" (oh my god), "LOL" (laughing out loud), "WTF" (what the fuck?), as well as emoticons and "the middle finger."

but someone needs to. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All caps...appropriate?

I usually see it written that way.

Thanks for any help...

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They're initialisms, so yes, it's appropriate. I've seen them written in lowercase too, but technically they should be uppercase (of course, we're applying formal written standards to forms of common usage that do not necessarily respect those standards...) — Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the user and the context. This article is very prescriptive for Wikipedia, I'm concerned about NPOV. Almost all other articles concerning language describe actual use, but half of this one is a list of dubitably notable academics' and journalists' thoughts on how Internet slang is properly used. Stihdjia 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Any way we can get closer to the older versions?

If you look back through the history of this article to say October (as recent as 161767791) of 2007 or earlier, this article appears to be much better. The biggest flaw back are pretty much the same as now lack of citations, original research, and some random definitions that aren't necessary to explain thrown in. Online slang (aka Internet slang) has been around a long time, much of it is not that much different then the slang I saw 25 years ago on old BBS and early networks. Okay some of the slang like re- meaning again, as in rehi or the shorter re has fallen by the way side. Much of it (lol, rofl, :), etc) is still around, surly there are sources out there.. PaleAqua (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No List..... Period.

Look, this has been talked about REPEATEDLY and over and over it is added back. There should be no list, per Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:NOT#MANUAL) simple as that. Stealth (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be pedantic the one that applies more closely is WP:NOT#DICT. Though I slightly disagree; I think a short sample list of terms especially ones of significance or especially notable would be appropriate. PaleAqua (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the second you have a tiny example paragraph with like 5 examples, people add more....and more.... and then we get to this last edit here. Now after I deleted it this new edit came, leave it for a while and there will be a list. It started as something that could be useful but most likely will be bad later (edit here. So does that make sense? Stealth (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but the article could use a few examples as illustration. You can always watchlist it for new changes. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thats actually already there "r" to mena "are" "u" to mean "you" etc. it's in one of the paragraphs.... Stealth (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Looking at the examples that were deleted in the last big deletion ("LOL," etc), it seems that this article was just a bad version of the fairly good Leet article. Now, of course, this article is terrible, because it contains no information what-so-ever. Shouldn't this merge into Leet, Leet merge here, or at least this article turn into something that is actually useful, like the Leet article? &mdash Sam 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

The link to Wiktionary is more than sufficient. Anything more just invites you know what. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

misleading claim or something, I guess :)

The article states: 'A system also exists that uses purposely misspelled words and incorrect grammar and punctuation. This is usually called "Kitteh" or "LOLcat" because it originated as the captions for images of kittens.'

Very similar intentional misspellings/mispunctuations/mis...grammars have been used since long before lolcats. See B1FF &c. I think the best we could claim is that it is most strongly associated with the lolcats, but claiming they are the origin is kind of a broad stroke with a narrow brush. Eris Discord | Talk 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everything came from the internet

This article is wrong, not everything came from the internet. IT should be renamed something else. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give any examples?--Megaman en m (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1988/1989, when I was in US naval nuclear power schools, instructor's used to hand back inscrutable exam answers with giant WTF scrawled over them. So I'm not so sure this has its origins in the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.98.71 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some terms now commonly associated with internet/chat slang have earlier origins, including wtf, fyi, and probably more. To me, it makes sense to re-write the definition slightly to say we are talking about slang in wide use on the internet rather than slang that can be proved to have originated on the internet. betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I think both of these have a common point of origin: the US military. Internet arises from DARPANET, to which migrate the standard "FUBAR" and other long-standing military social acronyms. The larger question of linguistic hyperreductionism probably would require getting the linguistics people involved, and I'm definitely not ready to speak with any authority there. Scott Swanson (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good point. The article needs to clarify the point that many similar abbreviations preceded internet slang - many of them used by telegraphers and amateur radio operators (tnx, ur, hr, om), others by the military (SNAFU, FUBAR), still others by linguistic mavericks like Harry Schultz in his Harry Schultz Newsletter (IMO). It would be nice to show the roots of internet slang in these and other sources. Ditkoofseppala (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

AKA should certainly go - its use predates the earliest computers by decades, used by police, etc to identify a list of aliases 132.185.240.121 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding and improving this article

Wikipedia is the go-to source for a topic like this. So, with all the scholarly research and popular press this topic gets, why is our article not longer and better? I am not a linguist or social scientist (IANALOSS?), but CMC (computer-mediated communication) is a hot research topic in both those areas. betsythedevine (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

possible bias/points of relevance

Just reading through this the article seems to cast the use of internet slang in somewhat of a poor light. Specifically I don't think very many people (except the researchers quoted) are really concerned (at all) about slang of any form suddenly coming into the business world. Maybe I'm off base here, but the article struck me as somewhat 'grandmotherly' in that this was mentioned twice. I'd be interested to see more information about the relevance of internet slang on the internet and maybe a little less about bizzare fears concerning internet slang taking over the 'real world'. I'm also curious (since there's a section for linguistic research) as to why there's no discussion of internet slang as a tool for expression to compensate in environments where body language is muted. Maybe more research needs to be done here. *Goes off to research* [unsigned]

Indeed. The article's non-neutral bias favors criticism. Who are we to decide which language evolutions are acceptable and which are not? 155.101.9.41 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me add my heartfelt agreement that this article blatantly violates Wikipedia NPOV. Its bias against the use of internet abbreviations is extremely obvious throughout. Needs a complete from-the-ground-up rewrite - IMHO! Ditkoofseppala (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the people on top of me, I think that this article paints internet slang in too negative of a light to be good for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.9.223 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's better now than it was in 2009 (when they posted above); but it maybe still has some distance to go. It's not horrible when you consider that most of the views recorded are sourced to an inline citation. But I think the thing some people (like yourself perhaps) would say, reading these views, is "I don't care whether it's sourced to a reliable source; it's still grandmotherly and outdated." And I would agree with that feeling. In particular, I have not read the Laccetti and Molski 2003 reference, but it sure sounds (tentative hypothesis pending reading) like they're conflating use of slang with orthographic error. Just because those two are often coexisting in the same communication doesn't mean they're equivalent or invariably paired. I'd guess that Laccetti and Molski would concede that point if asked; but they'd counter that their point still stands—bad spelling and slang use are co-occurring in student populations in ways that may prejudice employers against the students. The thing missing here that needs to be explicitly acknowledged is that one decade's novel slang is often another (later) decade's widely used, widely accepted vocabulary. That principle has always been true in human language. So any criticism of internet slang will inevitably have a short shelf life. Anyone who may have written 15 years ago that "FYI" is a cryptic neologism and should be avoided will now find that their advice is moot and outdated—grandmotherly, as someone above said (or schoolmarmish, which is about the same in some grandmas' cases, I suppose). — ¾-10 01:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL

I am fairly certain that if you check most websites or forums that employ internet slang "rofl" is far more common than "rotfl". You will also find that they are almost always written in lower case as the entire purpose of these statements is to increase communication speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.129.176 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Someone should bang up a page that talks about LOL and ROFL so we can 'fix' this and cite it. The term 'ROTFL' is used 80 per cent less than ROFL. Where did I pull this from I hear you ask. Google them both, look at the results. 124.188.210.63 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gtg

Gtg redirects here, but it doesn't even appear in content. It should be fixed I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.184.89 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GTG redirects here because it's internet slang, so where else should it belong? And no, we're not going to add it to the article since this isn't a dictionary.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Other languages

There is internet slang in other languages. This should be mentioned to represent a world view of the subject matter. USchick (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Overly Tortuous Language

This is a fascinating article, but the tone reads like an entry in some linguistics journal and appears to be aimed at a very small (dare I say L33T?) group that understands the lingo. I would like to see this written in a way more accessible to average readers. Could we possibly modify some of the "linguisticese?" This is Wikipedia, not the Journal of Linguistics. Andacar (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Improvements to better elaborate a worldwide view of Internet slang

Hello, everyone. I've been reading the Internet slang page, and I thought of some changes we could make to give the article the worldwide view it needs, and to improve on how it informs the reader.

1. The given definition now is vague and does not sufficiently describe what Internet slang is. The introductory paragraph that should define what it is consists rather of how it comes about. In addition to a concise definition, the existing information could be used to explain where Internet slang is derived from and how.

2. A new section should also help to better illustrate what entails slang. Defining the classes of slang would give a more structured approach to understanding the phenomenon. If I'm not wrong, somebody did make an entry that was relevant but it wasn't used in the page eventually.

3. The section entitled "Beyond computer-mediated communication" can also be improved on to give a less technical outlook. This section can be modified to look at the use of Internet slang outside of the Internet, and in spreading knowledge of Internet slang to newer users of the Internet. For this latter point, an example that we could use as illustration would be a South Korean textbook that informs children what common abbreviations in online communication like STFU mean. This section could also look at the social impact of Internet slang, such as the use of LOL in direct spoken conversation or short forms used in school essays.

4. The most significant area for improvement is making the article have a more globalised description, so Internet slang will be elaborated on from the perspective of less common sources such as non-English speaking countries. I think we all agree that Asia and the Middle East in particular, would be good examples of this, seeing how slang is a means of avoiding political censorship. This point has been mentioned in separate articles on Wikipedia already, but it could be mentioned here. This will also give the page more contiguity with the rest of the content. As a start, describing the 'worldwide' aspect of internet slang will consist of an overview with a few of the most frequent examples used within the text of the paragraph(s) to better inform the reader. There will be no list, as I understand the regulations do not allow for one, but a couple of them would make things easier for those those less familiar with the topic.

5. Citations should also be supplemented. Of course, this will be partly from the new content, but if possible, there could be additional sources that could be entered into the references section to give the page more credibility.

6. The last thing that I want to try to address is the concern about overly torturous language. The section on linguistic analysis needs a revamp to address this concern, so we could remove this section and instead assimilate the information into other sections. The existing contribution is more appropriate for explaining the motivations behind using Internet slang, for example.

I'm still new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if what I've suggested will be feasible to the rest of you, but I'd really like to hear from some of you before I edit the page. Thank you so much for reading this very long suggestion, and have a nice day!

--Sheefa.sameha (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sauce

I added this example because the source given mentions its use in an animated feature. thus, we have a source which is verifiable. I could expand on it here. I think the obvious solution to the "list" problem is to only list examples here that have solid sources. Of course, if some intrepid soul would just publish a book of internet slang/memes, we could cite that as a sauce (source).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Origins

I'm moving this information to the talk page for discussion: The selection process remains seemingly irregular or abstract. The process of coinage is therefore also difficult to describe. The author of Netiquette, Virginia Shea, admits that many parts of her book were made up as she went along.

What selection process? Does Netiquette address Internet slang or the etiquette on the Internet? How does this pertain to the origin of the language? USchick (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)