Talk:Internet slang/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Sort Of Useless

This should definately get a complete rewrite. And it should reference leet more. I think this article should even be deleted. If you read some of the parts to it, it is definately talking about leet. Also, "lmao" directs here, but "roxorz" directs to the leet article, when they are pretty much the same thing. THEemu 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for contributing! I'm the one who added the rewrite tag, so I suppose I can only agree with you--making my opinion worthless. LOL. Thanks for investigating the issue though! --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so much delete, just written out properly Tytrox 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello - so fix it! Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including you. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"roxorz" is actually more relevant to leet than simple slang. Note the x and orz. --Can Not 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to this article? It just seems like a bunch of conjectures about social reasons and usages for Internet slang. The information is fragmented, contradictory and unenlightening. Can anyone cite any sources for anything they're saying or back their opinions and assertions in any way?

I know someone will say "why don't you fix it." My answer is that I'm not an expert and don't care enough about this topic to bother wasting my time finding any real research. Apparently, neither can anyone else who contributed, so perhaps this article should just be deleted.

Simply having a list of internet slang terms and meanings would be more concrete and useful than this claptrap. 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Having a list of terms and their definitions if not for what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. This article is about the history and significance of the terms, not what specific ones actually mean. нмŵוτнτ 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


A merge was proposed between LOL (internet slang) and Internet slang. I've fixed the tags and brought discussion to one place (ie here). --h2g2bob (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

from Talk:Internet Slang (which is a redirect)

  • I'm personally in favour of keeping LOL in its own article. I feel lol is notable enough to warrant its own article, with 176 million Ghits and several good quality references from independent sources. Lol is even used in more everyday speach by people like Charlie Brooker (here). My opinion is there is enough distinct information on lol that it should have its own entry with a brief summary in this one. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a keep per h2g2bob. LOL is definitely one of the most used acronyms on the net right now. bibliomaniac15 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll say merge because it's basically in the same category. Deletion Quality 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge that confused article, much of which is about "ROTFL" anyway. We read above: I feel lol is notable enough to warrant its own article, with 176 million Ghits (emphasis added). Feel has 550 million; it lacks an article here -- and quite rightly, as WP is not a dictionary. Additionally, I'm underwhelmed by my first try at looking up the "good quality references" for the significance of the use of these rather tiresome but anyway linguistically uninteresting terms. -- Hoary 09:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's far from confused. And much of it is not about ROTFL, any more than it is specifically about LOL. Some of it is about both. However, that's an argument for renaming it (I've thought that for a long time a better name is in order.), not an argument for merger, given that there are elements of Internet slang that it most definitely isn't about.

      As for your failure to find good quality references, I suggest (a) following the link that h2g2bob gave above and (b) using Google Scholar to find academic papers instead of using Google Web to find web log postings. When you do, you'll see how the sources often separate the smileys and emoticons from the (laughter) slang initialisms. (This paper in JCMC separates the twain, for example, calling LOL, ROTFL, et al. "disclaimers".) Uncle G 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • h2g2bob hits the nail right on the head. A merger is not a good idea. Wikipedia:Summary style, just as is used for the discussions of emoticons, is the way to go here. The problem to be addressed is not a merger of a sourced article into here. It is sorting out the unsourced mess of this article, so that it is more in line with what sources actually say. Doing that will reveal that there's plenty of scope for separate articles.

    It is this article that is the confused one, in part because it appears to have grown as an accumulation of original research and yet another attempt to write a folk dictionary, rather than as encyclopaedic content based upon sources. Ironically, what is in fact needed is the same sort of attention to finding sources that have analysed Internet slang, to adding verifiable content to this article that is actually based upon them, and to removing original research and folk dictionaries and keeping them removed, that editors gave to LOL (Internet slang). Merger isn't anything to do with that, and doesn't help it in the least. Uncle G 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    • KeepIf someone is on line and they read LoL and they wonder what it means they are going to go to Wikipedia and type LoL, not Internet slang. Many people may not see it for Internet slang, but youth slang, or my not place it in the construct interent slang. Merging would reduce the usefullness of the information and give this meme over to Google, which Wikipedia is proving to be good at. (Rhooker1236 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
    • Incredibly strong keep. The slang "LOL" is extremely common, moreso than all other internet slang, and merits its own page.
    • Strong keep in accordance with reasons given by h2g2bob and Uncle G. Sir Fastolfe 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ok just for an example since you want it to keep its own "site area", goto log in or create an account and see how many times lol is used and then come back and tell me

NO! It dosen't need to be merged. 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, don't care :P

  • Merge..."LOL" defiantly doesn't need its own article.Spartyboy40 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It would be just like merging [Adidas] w/ sportswear. [LOL (lol)] got plenty of encyclopedic content. Indeed, [Internet slang] can be expanded easily w/o needing to fill it w/ 'lol' content. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Definitely a notable enough word with enough history/info to be kept as its own article. I found the article after genuinely typing "lol wikipedia" in to google, in the aim of getting some information on it. I would have been quite disappointed to have found it existing only as a section in another article. 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am for keeping a seperate LOL page as it is by far the most recognizable slang term. I would rewrite the article to include strictly LOL related text. Then we could move most of the other information to a newer and more complete list, including new keywords such as Leet, 1337, and ROFLCOPTER, etc... --- Waldospe
  • People search for lol on google. Well I did, because it's so popular. They don't search for "internet slang". "LoL!"
  • Keep - please think of the children.
  • Strong Keep - lol is way, way, way too popular to not have its own article.

blah blah blah

((8w —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


Ok, what do you think?

I rewrote it, so I want to know whot people think of it now?
May 18 2007

I cleaned up your edit job, fixed a couple of spelling errors and created proper links to abbreviations and MMORPG (no offense). But truthfully, I think this article should have two categories: MMORPG & Message Board slang. They're both widely known but there are some that are exclusive to each individual genre.--DavePretty 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it needed a complete rewrite. It was better the way it was before. Now it's just a list oh random expressions, some of them rather dodgy. I think this article should deal with the history of the Internet slang, like it did before, and another article should be created - List of Internet phrases - containing the list here. Plus, I'm sure there are 2 or 3 more lists just like this one. On second thought, all those should be merged. I request a revert to the original content. No offence, but here is a bigger list of phrases: List_of_Internet_slang Bravemuta 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

reverted. --Haigejobu 13:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire notion of LOL has expanded from the the boundaries of internet slang. I believe that LOL should be kept a separate article from internet slang, but I do believe that a rewrite could do it a lot of good.

I think that the easiest way to clean up this article would be to split it up into sections with lists of abbreviations/emoticons/etc. and their meanings. With that done, adding to the article would become easier as well.

LOL should be merged into the internet slang bit...

It is a very important part- important enough to merit it's own section- but NOT an entire article. I typed in LOL expecting to see a section on internet slang- not a whole section!

Merge them! 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Strange Faerie Eire 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it deserves it's own page - 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet slang is a huge phenomenon... important subtopics deserve separate articles. You wouldn't merge every black and white film into the same article, would you?

The slang page needs...

needs a list of abbr.s and their meaning:

Such as:

lol - laugh out loud

lmao - laugh my ass off

rofl - rolling on the floor laughing

etc etc

including kk etc... perhaps a link to mobile slang as I find myself using text slang online(usually on messenger services) and net slang in texts etc....

What about having "in talk" (messenger/e-mails) abbr.s such as lol, lmao etc in a seperate section to "general" online abbr.s such as gaming slang such as mmorpg etc? 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Strange Faerie Eire 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the following sentence: "A noob is also someone who sucks and life and should be killed because they can't play the game, or just cant do anything."

However I am unable to edit that sentence. This sentence should be completely removed!

Spam, or true facts?

I can't tell if this is either what it really means, or something done by a spammer:

3. >:3 - JESUS CHRIST ITS A LION GET IN THE CAR Beanbeanbean 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's internet slang, but not global internet slang, it's basically a joke between a few sites, shouldn't be here. RooZ 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering that too. Crowstar 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke, just not a good one. Like this - -]: ) You like my hat?

  • Merge and Clarify - merge LOL and merge/clarify with/from Leet. Leet could be a chapter of Netspeak (or at least be mentionned!) ycc2106 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

According to NoSlang:

”Internet slang consists of slang and acronyms that users have created as an effort to save keystrokes. Terms have originated from various sources including Bulletin Boards, AIM, Yahoo, IRC, Chat Rooms, Email, Cell Phone Text Messaging, and some even as far back as World War II.

Internet Slang is also called AOL speak, AOLese, AOLbonics, netspeak, or leetspeak (although leetspeak traditionally involves replacing letters with numbers and is reseved for games). While it does save keystrokes, netspeak can prove very hard to read.” ... short, simple and clear!? ycc2106 14:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted vandalism

'Abbreviations im so gayy are probably...'

How appropriate that an internet slang article be vandalised.

--Lord Akria 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just not very thorough

There are a lot of things missing and this article is disorganized.

First off, I would suggest adding some chronology, where and when the use of these slang acronyms originated.

Secondly, I would take out the discussion of MMORPGs altogether. The use of the acronym MMORPG is confusing because that acronym is not "slang". Additionally, every acronym you mentioned is used outside of MMORPGs in some sense.

Third, I would reorganize the piece. An introduction, vocabulary, usage, and whatever else after that.

To point out something you did well, I like the clarification about newbie/noob. That was good. But remember, it's not limited to MMO's as the same distinction can be made in many games such as counterstrike.

This piece doesn't need to be destroyed, you can rework it.

I like pie

"I like pie" redirects here, but there's no mention of it in the article. ~Crowstar~ 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it being used much, don't know if it's popular enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Until it is included however, redirecting seems silly. I've put it up for discussion on WP:RfD here.
--oKtosiTe_talk 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Is the term mojibake considered internet slang?

Merging the Article

I definitely think that merging this article into internet slang would be useful because it mentions a lot of things that is also in internet slang, such as leetspeak. It would be more useful to have one article that covers more than two medium-length articles.

It could yes, but then again, Internet Slang could become too large, more commonly used things such as PEBCAK could still keep their own article. Crazyboy899 11:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I understand that LOL is an important part of internet slang, but it is only a part. You could merge the articles and have lol redirect to Internet Slang. I think that the merge is a good idea.Illinois2011 08:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article needs a section for public opinions on the common usage of internet slangs. I've seen a lot of articles on how schools and such view slangs. Some say that it's a destruction of the English language, some say that it's creative and efficient. What you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFEice (talkcontribs)
I agree; I was surprised not to find much about criticism in this article. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


someone needs to make an external link to - deprof July 2007

Origin verifiable?

The article claims emoticons originated with email, which is probably incorrect. Usenet existed before the Internet (for those who are unfamiliar, Usenet often propagates through the Internet, but it can and does use other means also, such as UUDP over phone lines and, in some places, by jeep and floppies) and I am reasonably sure I remember seeing emoticons in use in the old days. Does anyone have any citations for the claim in the article that emoticons originated with email? SmashTheState 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to mention how it'd be useful to have a "history of" section, rather than focus on specific examples. Some parts of the article seem like a list of examples in paragraph form. For example, I think we could incorporate the Creation of :-) and :-( into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miggyb (talkcontribs) 19:56:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Isn't this section incorrect?

Concerning emoticons and smileys, they are not the same thing. Emoticons are text typically reflecting an emotion the user wants to display while communicating in a text medium, but can also reflect actions and other things. Emoticons have been around since the advent of text communication, and certainly before the Internet. (People have been using X's and O's, a very primitive form of emoticon, to indicate affection on hand-written letters for centuries.) It wasn't until they found attention with the development of the World Wide Web proper that they the name "emoticon" came into vogue.

Smileys, however are quite different. These are graphical representations of emoticons, such as the infamous smile that Yahoo! users have become accustomed to. Consider:

• A smiley cannot be transmitted in a text-only medium, whereas an emoticon (consisting of normal characters) can.

• Smileys are typically triggered by automatic conversion in a computer application, switching a true emoticon like ":-)" or pseudo-HTML like "/smile" on-the-fly to a graphic of a smiling face.

• Smileys are very rarely transmitted in their natural state; that is, as a graphic. Most commonly, they are substituted (as in bullet two above) using a graphic image existing on the recipient's computer. The actual graphic is not transmitted, just a code representing the image to be displayed (such code often a true emoticon).

• While variations do occur, emoticons are rarely changed. The traditional ":-)" for a smile might appear as ":)" or ":-]", but they usually don't stray too far from the original. In contrast, smileys have always been changeable. A Yahoo! smile might not match an ICQ smile, and with both, you can always download a new set of smileys to customize what you see. For savvy, creative users, this lends the possibility that your smiley could be uniquely your own, and nobody else in the world would see it represented as you do.

• Probably the simplest and easiest distinction for argument--smileys can (and often are) animated. Emoticons never are.

Would like to see some discussion, as well as some reference to the Emoticon article, which supports my argument here. FYI, was part of several BBS systems in the early days of emoticons, including FIDONet, and we had tight rules established about what was considered "proper grammar" for emoticons. Those of us familiar with those days can much easier see the disctinction between emoticons and smileys, and argue for keeping their heritages separate.


jF —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, that there is a distinction, or was, at least for some people. But since reliable sources say that "smileys" can be textual (for example, (I know it's only, but it's better than original research), it's probably best not to make a flat statement in the article that, by definition, they aren't textual. Wykily 09:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Classes of slang

The article mentions several classes of slang. Which class would "bot," "flame," "blog," and "googling" belong to?

They don't belong to any of the classes mentioned, but here's my point: the article seems to be about, not Internet slang, but Internet slang that has its origins in the fact that internet communications are typed. Therefore, I see a conflict between the title and the article, and I'm trying to think of an elegant solution. I'm not sure how, but one could just change the title to something like "Internet slang (written)". It's better than the title "Internet slang that has its origins in the fact that Internet communications are typed."

Whoever's reading this, feel free to comment. Wykily 03:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins of w00t

Deleted: It may also stem from a corruption of a phrase expressed if a boss in an MMOG such as World of Warcraft drops an exceptionally powerful or valuable item, which is "Wow - loot!"

The term "w00t" has been around FAR longer than World of Warcraft. It predates most modern MMORPGs. As such, it's inappropriate to base this words' origins to World of Warcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


This seems to be sysadmin/tech support slang/jargon rather than Internet slang. I'm against the merge. — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The both internet slang though. Both can be used in text messing and slang--Yoshi Revoultion 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

Anything written in the Latin alphabet can be used in text messaging and slang. That means nothing. IS everything that can be saido n the 'net "Internet slang"? "PEBKAC" is used on the Internet, but primarily by people who work with tech support issues, and rarely by the Internet population at large—it's rarely relevant outside of that context. I'm not saying that PEBKAC should have its own article (it's basically a dictionary definition, and as such belongs in Wiktionary), just that it shouldn't be merged here. — Gwalla | Talk 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some things that redirect here

  1. AOLamer
  2. ICYDK
  3. Lmao
  4. C&V
  5. Chaq
  7. BYOC
  9. Iykwim
  10. CUWUL
  11. Hehelol
  12. Kthx
  13. INMP
  14. FUDIE
  15. Aolbonics
  16. Gl hf
  17. S2r
  18. Usawk
  19. Aolish
  20. Rifk
  21. Cyberbug
  22. Kthxbye
  23. ROLF
  24. Be right there
  25. Internetism
  26. AOLease
  27. AOLese
  28. AOLbonics
  29. AFAICS
  31. Gr8
  32. Gbtw
  33. Gtg
  34. Snoi
  36. Whoamfg
  37. *g*
  38. Omg wtf lol
  39. Jftr
  40. Hawt
  41. Suack
  42. Lmbo
  43. Rofllmfao
  44. CAOK
  45. IMHO
  46. Roflcakes
  47. Jeomk
  48. Post Whore
  49. Post whore
  50. PostWhore
  51. Postwhore
  52. Emotag
  53. Teh Butt Seckz
  54. Teh Suxxorz
  55. LMPO
  57. LOTI
  58. Lolwtfbbq
  59. Be Right Back
  60. Oyfg
  61. Uutf
  62. Lwpimp
  63. O.M.F.G.
  64. STFU newbie!
  65. STFU n00b!
  66. M8 = Mate
  67. Ttyl
  68. Talk To You Later
  69. Ontario Mega Finance Group
  71. Wuu2
  72. WITM8
  73. Iaal
  74. Idgf
  75. Kthxbai
  76. IntS
  77. B2w (Internet Slang)
  78. Ilysm
  79. Ily
  80. Bm4l
  81. Oh noes
  82. Rofltacular
  83. ZOMG!

Why do all of these links redirect here, when there's not even a mention of the majority of them in the page? —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talkcontribs) 20:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs locking and cleaning up. It's ridden with vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A** off

I can't see any reason to replace "ASS" with "A**" in the article. The actual word should be there. --IvanStepaniuk 10:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree I mean what's the point of it? someone could be talking about their donkey! haha Halo legend 00 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and changed it. Ericmedici 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Must Merge

I hate to bang an old drum, but this really should be merged!! What about merging with Leet? (sry, I forgot how to make it a hyper link, just search "leet") That page has lots of slang on it, and maybe all the pages that redirect here can go there! Ima genius =) 03:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (krosstown86, just not signed in)