Talk:Lolcat/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

iMac Lolcat

What an uninteresting lolcat... I suggest replacing it with something like this: Image:fats.jpg--Cadentsoul (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


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 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lolcats isn't a culture. It is a successful attempt at stealing caturday. A new*** (starred out the word because i don't think it is allowed) saw a cat, maybe limecat or longcat and did not know what to call them. He then went on to make a website called (something like that) and teamed up with photo bucket to spread these lies around the internet. This is similar to someone seeing a computer and knowing what to call it, deciding it shall be called a typescreen, and teaming up with people to help everyone learn the incorrect name and then helping them make their own typescreens that are less efficient (or unfunny) than the original computers. Just the thought of lolcats makes me rage but i posted this here because i understand wikipedia's rules and know that i have no sources and so this could not be posted in the article. UNRELATED: first post or anything so i'm not sure how to sig. I'm going to leave 4 tildes. Hope that works. (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think the edit warring activity has sprung from the influx of popularity of 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 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Theres no reason icanhascheezburger fits the bill and 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 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Generally agreed upon between who? The proper criteria should be more towards original content and community promotion than PR. Sites like 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
I agree. Meowy 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
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) (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 and 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

ICHC has numerous articles written about it, and it's impact on spreading the lolcat meme. If you can produce similar references to support, 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) (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 but because of link and picture spamming which got a few media write ups suddenly icanhazcheezburger is allowed and authoritative????? give me a break.........

Whatever the origins of ICHC, and the other thousand clones, ICHC has coverage in reliable sources enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 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) (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 and should definitely be here. (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 and took place in 2006..." either way, they should be in the body of the text or in an external links section, perhaps both

The article is not about, 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 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)


"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

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)

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) 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 "" was registered. (ref. )

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)

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 was named after lolcats.Meowy 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

External link(s)

I suggest that Lolcats at DMOZ would be good for the article. (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Category moved: (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"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)-- (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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. (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
OM NOM NOM is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimvais (talkcontribs)

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)

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)

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

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

Okay. 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. (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


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)

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

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

You're all right. Pronounce it either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I use and hear it as rhyming with "mole cat". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


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)

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

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)

This is contemporary history (AKA pop culture). In the future, internet memes will most probably be viewed as a major artistic movement within the computer era. This has relevancy and could be the root cause for other movements in the future. Occamsrazorwit (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

I just stumbled upon this flicker collection that suggest there were lolcats in the 1900's, complete with lolspeak. (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Miguelanxo.

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)
Does it matter that he has a book of these comics coming out with Abrams ComicArts next year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

external link to

Some editors are removing the external link to 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; 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)

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)
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)

User:Rjanag and I disagree as to whether there was consensus for no External Links section at all. I'll grant one reason for not having it, that of constant link-spamming has gone away now the article is semi-protected. TRS-80 (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If the article is semi-protected and we don't need to worry about link-spamming, then why does it matter if we have the EL section or not? And even if people do try to spam it, there are enough of us watching it to revert spam quickly.
As for my two cents, I think it makes sense to have a direct link to a well-known lolcat repository given that they're the subject of the article, and that's pretty much what external section is for. The internal link in the Format section is just a link to an article about ICHC, not a link to the site itself. Yes, we don't want the article to be spammed with links to every stupid lolcat knock-off out there, but a single link to the (as far as i know) most famous lolcat site should be acceptable.
(Notice that I seem to have changed my mind over the past several months. Politizer above is the same person as me, but back in September; I'm not sure what I was thinking back then.)
I hope we can get more input on this; TRS-80, have you cross-listed this discussion anywhere? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As the person who initially poleaxed the external links section, I would continue to prefer they not be used. Internal links are always better than external links, so the link to ICHC's article is preferable in my view. A link to ICHC's website is directly relevant to the article on the website. It is not directly relevant to this article, imo. Resolute 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
But a link to a lot of lolcat examples is relevant. If you can suggest a better way to link to such a resource, I'm all ears. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There are two lolcats in the article itself (not counting the 1905 post card), and a link to the Commons category with 82 more. A link to a lot of lolcat examples already exists, thus an EL to ICHC does not significantly add to this article. Resolute 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This image was removed from the article by User:Ninja337 for violating'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 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)

  • Wouldn't making our own lolcat to put into the article be like, making stuff up?Ninja337 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but based on the terms of use for, 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)
    • Yeah, that's a good point. The image in question is not particularly useful anyway, I don't think we're losing anything by taking it out; I was just curious. Thanks for your responses! Politizer (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If the image is from, then it may not be free. If it's self-made, it's fine, although the watermark is confusing. On another note, Image:Cat-eating-prey.jpg is license GFDL/cc-by-sa, so the derivative can't be released into the public domain. Maxim () 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it was self-made using, 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)

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)


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)

  • 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)
    • 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. —Politizertalk • contribs ) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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. —Politizertalk • contribs ) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Anything that's widely written about can easily become a GA. -- how do you turn this on 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
So that means no I guess. Ninja337 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
Love and care won't procure a miracle. Ninja337 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

helpful source

salon's a little late on the uptake but it never hurts to have another RS. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
Well, thanks for that helpful commentary. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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, 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)

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)
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)
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)
(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)

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)

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)


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)

I think that's probably a good idea. I used to feel that the vandalism here was not too serious, but looking back now, this is one of the pages where I have the most edits out of all the pages I watch, and I haven't even added content in months, all my edits are just reverting vandalism. I'm also unfamiliar with the standards for semi-protection, but I've seen less-vandalized pages get semi-protected before, and looking at the page history now there's almost no constructive edits, so if you put in a request for page protection I would support you on that. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Requested here Matt (Talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
And done. Matt (Talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


It seems to me that this article used to be much longer? What happend? Deleting information is not good for Weikipedia. Netrat (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting original research and non-notable trivia is. I don't know what specific information you're talking about, but that's probably what was removed. If you could provide a permalink to whatever previous revision of the article had the old information, it would be easier to see what's going on. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed article became much shorter. I'll need to go through few dozens of diffs to find out exect details. Netrat (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, according to Trivia sections decition, information from such sections should be moved to other sections, not deleted. And notability applies subjects of separate articles, not to contents of articles. Netrat (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I checked the history and there doesn't seem to have been any downsizing; perhaps you're just mistaken in how you remember the article. The last version you edited (and therefore I assume the last version you saw) was 4111 characters long (counting with prosesize.js), the current version is 4300. They both look more or less the same. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

News Journal reference

The News Journal (online) keeps articles active for 7 days and then sends articles to "archive" which then requires pay for access. The footnote (#18) does not state the date the article was accessed, but I'm assuming that the article was printed in The News Journal prior to the date of the references to the article in the History section. Additionally, The News Journal's own physical archive only goes back so far and any materials past a certain date can only be accessed by requesting a copy of the article from The Wilmington Library's microfiche collection (or by going to the library and viewing the microfiche personally- since the microfiche rolls are broken up into 6-month spans, it helps to know the date of the article). My question is, is this News Journal reference "verifiable" now that fact-checkers have to pay to see the article (even the library charges for paper copies)? A large amount of non-local-centric material that is printed in The News Journal actually comes from the Associated Press and associated Gannet Corp. newspapers and my concern is that the attribution may be incorrect. Geesbart (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's still considered a valid ref, since someone in the area could find it if they needed to (it would have helped if the original editor had included the accessdate, but unfortunately that doesn't disqualify the just makes it a pain). I don't know about the attribution (someone would have to check the microfiche to make sure). It is strange that I can't find such a supposedly recent article (2007) in the online archive search, but as far as I know the standard is to assume the reference is correct unless someone can show otherwise. Politizer talk/contribs 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lolcat available in de Wikipedia

I've just visited de:Lolcat - could someone add the link to that article in the language selection list, please? Thanks a lot. Cubitus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

Done. Politizer talk/contribs 20:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceiling cat

The use of the term "meme" here is as ambiguous as the term meme itself; I believe that term exists simply as a word to validate definitions that are self-promotional vehicles for the people who have coined and developed the term. After initially supporting the meme concept universally, I now see that the only things that fit the definition of a meme are musical and video recordings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bessa (talkcontribs) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, other things are memes too, such as quotations ("all your base are belong to us" and "do a barrel roll"). But that's really irrelevant to this page. This page is for discussing how to improve the Lolcat article, not for voicing your opinion about memes. Politizer talk/contribs 15:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

History of LOLCat speak

I believe this should be added to the History section. An earlier version of LOLCat speak appeared on the U2 fan site,, in August of 2004. The cartoon, Achtoon Baby, posted this cartoon which could be considered one of the first LOLCat cartoons on the internet:

This is the main page for the Achtoon Baby cartoon:

Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtcarroll8895 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Is there a list of all Lolcat pictures uploaded here? Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You can try commons:Category:Lolcats rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL wording

Despite the irony of a grammatical correction regarding "LOLspeak", I think the following line: "The name "lolcat" is a compound word of the words "LOL" and "cat".", should be changed to: The name "LOLcat is a compound word, comprising the acronym "LOL" and the word "cat", given that LOL is not a word but an acronym for the expression 'laughing out loud'.

PickyWicky (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can be a word as well. How are you defining "word"? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My Cat Hates You

Does anyone know if My Cat Hates You [4] helped the lolcats meme evolve into what it is? It has a very similar format, but uses correct grammar (probably why it's not as popular - heh). If so, should it be mentioned in the history section? The website looks to have been around since 2001, approximately 5 years before the and sites were founded. Brokenyard (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, (from 2005) and constant use of lolcats on (from at least 2002 if not earlier) predate any of this stupid chan crap by a long way. (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia VS sleeping

Regarding this edit. Ok, that true - more people do sleep than edit Wikipedia. Plus "own work" images should be prefered. But the problem here your new images tell nothing about the concept of lolcats. Lolcats are supposed to be funny - and your image is one of the unfunniest things I've ever seen. It does not help reader to understand what's so fun about lolcats. A well-known Wikipedia lolcat (maybe not to the degree of Monorail cat, but it is still famous) would be better illustration. Netrat (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no point arguing over whose picture is funnier; everyone has opinions, and trying to gauge which picture is "funniest" is a waste of time (it has been discussed several times before on this page and no one has reached any conclusions). I said as much above a couple months ago (that's me, just under a different name). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah- none of them here are close to funny, really. If you want to create a funnier "im in ur ___, ___ ur ___" lolcat, go for it, but a Wikipedia specific one is not appropriate. For a general article like this, the most general possible pictures (cheeseburger, invisible bike types) are best- too many have injokes or speficially nerdy subject matter to be of use. Wikipedia related lolcats are a prime example. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirection from LOCAT is misdirection

LOCAT is actually a tradename/patetnt for a chemical process that captures hydrogenesulphit (H2S)from gasses. Maybe it should be disconnetced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 26#Locat → Lolcat to try and have the redirect deleted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable LOL Cats Include Monorail Cat

I think monorail cat is notable to be mentioned because there are several monorail LOL cat images with captions created by cheezburger fans. And most notable of them all is "Happy Cat". Then there are the cats riding on an invisible bike or eating an invisible sandwhich. The cat riding an invisible bike is so notable, the icanhascheezburger team portrayed the famous orange tabby riding an invisible bike as a giant painted mural in San Francisco. Perhaps it was in watercolor? Ronewirl (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know they show up a lot in forums, facebook, etc., but if there's no coverage in reliable sources then unfortunately there's no good claim for notability. One of the main Wikipedia guidelines is that articles don't care about "what is true", but about what can be verified by looking at third-party sources. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have its own article? It seemzez quite notables. Kausill (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Has it been the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources as such to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards? Resolute 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Someone who can edit this (not me) should include an entry in the 'parodies' section on 'rolcats' - English translations of Eastern Bloc lolcats. They're basically lolcats from a Soviet era perspective and they're hilarious. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan broders (talkcontribs) 01:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look, but it doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Loldogs redirects here, yet it is never mentioned. (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's trivial and doesn't deserve to be mentioned. The connection is obvious enough already. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Mariners lolcat promotion

I think this merits a mention. I mean, a Major League Baseball team acknowledging an Internet meme has to be notable. [5] (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lolcat cheezburgr template deletion

Template Cheezburgr deletion

The lolcat cheezburger template is up for deletion, feel free to post your opinion at: TfD, Template:Cheezburgr. Dreadstar 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lolcats and creepypasta - why one and not the other?

I am really confused. Wikipedia article about creepypasta was deleted because "Wikipedia is not place for silly 4chan's memes" (Zero Kitsune). First of all, creepypastas are more than just a mere meme. They are short horror-style stories, and there are lots of rather indeed good creepypasta stories out there - in other words, they're art, just like any other form of short story is. Lolcats, on the other hand, are nothing more than a meme. So I really don't understand why lolcats deserve to have a separate article about them while creepypasta is not even mentioned anywhere in the entire Wikipedia.

The only reasonable courses of action are either to:

  • also remove the lolcats article and talk about both lolcats and creepypasta in the article about memes (although that's a bit silly because, as I've said, creepypastas are more than just a mere meme), or
  • remove the lolcats article and talk about lolcats within the memes article, and talk about creepypasta within the short stories article (seems like the most reasonable course of action to me), or
  • have a separate article about creepypasta, too.

In any case, it's really ridiculous that creepypasta isn't mentioned absolutely anywhere in the entire Wikipedia, while lolcats are not only mentioned, but have a separate article about them. :-/ -- Doccolinni (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, none of your courses of action are "reasonable" per Wikipedia's guidelines. lolcats are notable because they have received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Creepypasta has not. Thus, the former meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, while the latter does not. Resolute 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence in the article you linked to says: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." So by those guidelines, creepypasta doesn't merit its own article, and that's fine. But I still don't understand why it shouldn't be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, either in the article about memes or, preferably, in the article about short stories. -- Doccolinni (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It only deserves to be mentioned in an article if it's a notable part of that topic. It might be worth mentioning as a meme because it might be a well-known is not, however, worth mentioning in the short story article, because in the realm of short stories it is a very minor thing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Dude, ICHC has a book. I own it. When "creepypasta" can be purchased in an HMV, you might get an article about "creepypasta". Until then, you just have one or two websites calling "storytime" by a particular name. - BalthCat (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a media reference to creepypasta to help get the article rolling if you want it [6]. Ninja337 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they deleted the creepypasta article because lolcats are more widely known. --Looney Kid (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The "lolcat image depicting a cat in a monitor" is mislabeled

It depicts a cat in an iMac —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not want?

"do not want" links to the Revenge of The Sith movie page. Does anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's where the meme came from. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I always liked wiki-kitty

I'm in ur wikipedia, but I am not on the Lolcat page?

Just a personal preference, but I'm not going to start an edit war on the lolcat page... that's just silly. Azoreg (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, the most recent of which is #Editing Wikipedia VS sleeping. The main problem is that this picture is a self-referential in-joke that is not necessarily as funny to readers as it is to us...and that which picture is "funnier" is entirely subjective anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess we will have to wait for this cat to be the person of the year at Time Magazine, and make the front cover. maybe we can rig the choice there? maybe the cat can vote himself person of the year? oh, but then we would have to block the cat for blatant self promotion. but, since Jimbo Wales gave up the block tool, and since everyone else is likely to think hes (the cat, not jimbo) too cute to block, he will become person of the year, then defeat Obama in 2012, just in time for the Eschaton in 2012, when the black hole at the center of the galaxy will NOT release a stream of overwhelming plasma energy at our planet, out of love for this cat and his wacky antics. i for one welcome our new kiton overlord...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
ok rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I need to start working on scripts to rig the person of the year vote. Actually I'm now much happier that Wikipedia-lolcat.jpg is on the talk page.  :-) After reading the lolcat page again, I found the link to commons:Category:Lolcats. While having a full lolcat gallery is a bit much... I think that the link to wikicommons category lolcats should somehow be more obvious... Like maybe a "See more examples of lolcats here: commons:Category:Lolcats" sentence in the intro paragraph? I can't decide what would be the right balance between telling people "lolcats here!" and obnoxious. Azoreg (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) snippit needs clarifcation of use

It seems to redirect to a blogspot that has some political/cat theme —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


I have a bottle of pop in the fridge with a locat on thae label. Is it useful to the article to have a picture of this, as an example of lolcats spreading offscreen? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't hurt, although I'm not sure how much we can include in the prose without any reliable sources. The main issue is where there will be space, in this small article, to put another picture yet. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
the top image (iz mah house) looks slighty atypical - we could drop that and move up the "zleeping" one, which looks better (or perhaps just more cheezburgerish). The lolcat on the bottle is the "I made you a cookie...but I eated it" which became a sub-meme in itself. Maybe have the bottle below the "where's my dinner" one? Although, besides being a picture, there's probably not a lot you can reference about commercial applications of lolcats that aren't actually selling stuff (and so failing WP:RS). I wouldn't want a picture without supporting text, this article is already in constant danger of turning into a gallery as it is. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no.

- The main image is NOT a lolcat. It's the private work of some random guy. Lolcat is owned by I suggest we change it now. (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While that is the most famous website displaying lolcats, they certainly do not own the concept. Resolute 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Paragraph 1 says "A lolcat (pronounced LOLL-kat, with the "lol" not being an initialism)" and "The name "lolcat" is a compound word of the acronymic abbreviation "LOL" and the word "cat"."

There is no need to point out that lol is not an initialism because it explained elsewhere what it is. (The article on LOL says "LOL as one of the three most popular initialisms...". So it's also wrong.) Change the beginning to "A lolcat (pronounced LOLL-kat)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think lolcat means laugh out loud cat. hence the article is right (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

cause and effect

"—a dialect which is known as "lolspeak" or "kitty pidgin" and which parodies the poor grammar typically attributed to Internet slang."

I think that it would be more correct to say that lolspeak/kitty pidgin parallels baby talk in the real world, and it's use for lolcat captions plus the spreading popularity of the lolcat is creating an internet slang: lolspeak. Lolspeak is only a subset of other internet slang "languages" and expressions.

A big part of the charm of lolcats is that users and readers instantly recognize lolspeak as "hey, datz da way I talks to my kittehs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batbear (talkcontribs) 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cats only?

The lead says that this "is an image combining a photograph, most frequently of a cat . . ." Is there any reason to believe that a lolcat image can be of something that isn't a cat? --otherlleft 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The search for lolrus redirects to this article. Though it originated from the lolcats, it has grown into its own internet phenomenon. Even if it doesn't have its own article it could at least be mentioned here. (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)