Talk:Lolcat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Which image?

Users have tried to add a different images to this page many times recently. Can we decide on an image(s) to use so that there is consensus backing these removals? i ^said 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the WP cat. I think it's humorous taken in context (ie. in a WP article), and I think we all need to remember that this needs to be something that's appropriate for WIKIPEDIA, not something appropriate for 4chan. I'm not ragging on anyone (I'm twisted enough to stop by /b/ for a laugh every year-or-so) but please recognize that this is a different audience on the internet. If a little old man or woman wants to see what their kid is talking about when they say "lolcatz", what should they find? Bottom line: if you wouldn't show a particular image to your grandmother, it probably shouldn't be on WP, even if it is pretty mild. Mfrisk (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be Wikipedia-cat, seeing as it was made specifically for Wikipedia, and the one it's being replaced with is slightly inappropriate. I know and strongly agree with WP not being censored, but cat porn is simply unneeded here. It might be good to link to a commons category for lolcats, but at the same time that would encourage people to put lolcats on commons, so I dunno -Lucid 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia one. It is a good illustration and was made for the article. Viridae^Talk 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but there are currently two. Are we keeping both, or just the Wikipedia one? i ^said 06:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be the one about the "I'm in ur camera, doin' some noodz. The wikipedia one is not funny at all, and the purpose of a lolcat image is to be funny. How about keeping all three images instead of deleting one of them? Pistolen08^Talk

Agreed. The point of Lolcats is that they're funny.EmoDeathMachine 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Humour is perspective. Lolcats are perfectly welcome to be funny, but this is an encyclopedia, not a random stuff site. That picture is grossly inappropriate, especially when we already have perfectly suitable alternatives that have been around far longer without any problems --Lucid 01:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:ITSFUNNY --Lucid 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh... this isn't a deletion discussion, as far as I'm aware :) Gracenotes^T § 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the WP one, and none others. There is no need for two. i ^said 03:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the current image is not serving it's purpose; it's not a canonical example because it isn't funny. I would suggest using one of the famous images like "invisible sandwich" or "can i has cheesburger?" but I doubt that they would survive under fair use since they are replaceable. We really need a free-licensed image to be found/made which is actually funny... Tomgreeny 03:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny is subjective, and therefore has no relevance to which image will be included. I personally don't think the WP one is funny, or particularly illustrative of an lolcat, but it was made for this article. Also, I'm no expert, but are images uploaded to flikr useable here without permission? If not, does changing the text on the image make it a different image? If a picture can be made originally, that illustrates the concept of an lolcat well, then that should be the one chosen. For now, I guess we should go with the WP one. i ^said 03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course humour is subjective, but does ANYONE actually find this one funny? This is like having pictures of ugly people in the beauty article, it's not properly representative of the thing it's supposed to represent. Tomgreeny 04:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is the same issue. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Things that are open to interperation, such as what is funny, should not be used as criteria for what is included. i ^said 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that the picture is "grossly inappropriate". The picture is quite humorous, and is not revealing at all. The picture is exactly this- A cat lying in a funny position with a related funny saying. While I do understand that humor is subjective, I think that we can agree that the WP lolcat is completely void of humor. I also believe that wikipedia should not be censored, and that that particular image does not represent the essence of a lolcat. I would be willing to settle on the monorail lolcat or the "Let me show you my pokemanz" lolcat, even though I believe the "I'm in ur camera, doin' some n00dz" would be a better fit for the article. Pistolen08^Talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I cringe every time I see the Wikipedia lolcat. Having a cute little self-reference is understandable, but not to the exclusion of more "genuine" (and less blatant) examples. Pistolen08: while the pokemanz and monorail are great examples of lolcats, they are not released under free licenses, and are overall not appropriate for Wikipedia. Moral of the story: release your lolcats under the CC-by-SA/GFDL dual-license :) Gracenotes^T § 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You can try looking for lolcats released under creative commons on flickr here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=lolcat&l=cc&page=46 , the only funny one I found that appears to actually be of the owners cat (and so we can be sure has a valid licence) is this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandylee/607102864/ Tomgreeny 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How ironic. I dont think we should but the satan cat one in, because it could be offensive. i ^said 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a positive correlation between offensiveness and humour content :P Tomgreeny 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the satan cat is appropriate for wikipedia, even if it does have the correct license. The one with the gray/white cat "in ur camera, doin some noodz" is perfect for the lolcat wiki page. I am the cat's owner and I have released the image under the CC-by-SA/GFDL dual-license. I have given free use for the image in any way, shape, or form you wish to use it in. In conclusion, it is the ideal lolcat... Pistolen08 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

← Well, technically there are restrictions on that license, so it's not any and every use. And there are other images that have just as good of a license. As for it being the ideal image, I don't even get what it means. i ^said 08:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you guys are having a hard tiem finding a fair-use Caturday image Ninja337 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we want to use a fair use, in fact I dont think we can, because there's a better liscensed image available, which precludes using fair use. We're having a hard time finding a funny lolcat that is liscensed under the creative commons/GFDL/public domain. i ^said 03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes... undoubtedly 4chan would release a barrage of freely licensed lolcats if we changed the article title. Or not >.< Gracenotes^T § 04:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh the depth of misunderstanding revealed in the above comment. It's like a previous commentator who, midweek, searched 4chan in vain for a caturday thread! 4chan has nothing to release or to license. And 4chan would no more undertand the meaning of the word license than God (or Anonymous) would understand the meaning of the word limits. Meowy 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything posted on 4chan is property of it's respective owners. Something lolcats wouldn't understand as much as Nazis would understand a Zionist state. Ninja337 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And it is the unwritten understanding that anything and everything posted on 4chan can (and if it is good, probably will) be saved, appropriated, and re-posted or altered by anyone! That means only the best survives. In contrast, lolcats ot icanhascheeseburger is full of fail and forced memes because there is no natural selection to kill off the unfunny stuff. This is why those sites are killing the whole joy of cat captions. Meowy 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lolcode DRV opened

Hai. I has a Deleshun review. It has gained teh reliabal surces. I thot u might want to know. Kthxbye --Lucid 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article at LOLCODE has now been restored. It could use a little bit of work and an extra source or two, but it's starting to catch up. Anyone interested in helping out? MrZaius^talk 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Future sources

More of the same: http://www.gazette.com/articles/cat_25284___article.html/sites_web.html

ICanHasCheezburger-specific articles covering the financial side of the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21online.html?ex=1187668800&en=b63b5b4971bececb&ei=5070 http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070713_202390.htm

MrZaius^talk 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118798557326508182.html JavaTenor 17:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The WSJ article cites a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reference for "I'm in your base killing your d00ds." But ED was banned from Wikipedia in MONGO's arbitration. Does this have any bearing as to whether the WSJ is an acceptable source for this article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't think so. It looks like the WSJ linked to the first Google result of "I'm in your base killing your d00ds" just to provide some sort of context for the in-joke. The WSJ is an acceptable source based on its journalistic excellence and reliability. (And banned-by-association chains are impractical.) Gracenotes^T § 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User: ptk fgs

Does anyone realize that the guy chairing these discussion's name is 'PTKFGS', Punch The Keys For God's Sake, The sean connery phrase that is essentially the calling card of YTMND? I don't find it unbiased in the least bit that a ptkfgsytmndfag is keeping the nail in the coffin on the renaiming of this article, since 4chan and ytmnd have been at odds with eachother since the dawn of time. Everyone here can tell you this 'lolcats' phenom was born, and continues on, 4chan.org. Requesting citations to this effect is completely futile due to the fact that it is a DYNAMIC CONTENT site with no authoritative source of information on its memes besides ED (which is done on purpose to keep 4chan a small, largely incomprehensible community to gaiafags and the like.

By the same token, there are few if any valid citations supporting the name lolcats, and any that do exist are rather half-baked. 4chan.org as a member of the imageboard/meme factory community, is by far the most well publicised and in recent times, garners the most fame. Its image-macros have a very unique style in text, font, size, spelling conventions, color, placement, and general theme. People just don't realize that 90% of the 'funny images' they download from 3rd party sites like icanhascheezburger or funnyimages.com were, in fact, products of 4chan. I believe that since nearly every caturday image referenced on these humor farming sites features the distinct mark of 4chan imagemacro tools, we can safely attribute them to the aforementioned cache of users.

The bottom line is, ptkfgs presents a conflict of interest in editing and/or managing the content of this article, due to the fact that 4chan, YTMND, SomethingAwful, et al are involved in a known troll war, and someone with a wiki identity of THE prominent meme of any one of these sites is more than a coincidence. If he is not a pro-YTMNDtrollfag, he is certainly slanted in the direction of said site, and his/her arguments in favor of 'lolcats' are basically rooted in heresay and circumstantial evidence, while the body of evidence supporting these as original 4chan memes is overwhelming.

Please, if anyone else knows of an entire community which uses this font, typeset, size, color, style, and purposeful, unique, consistent grammatical errors EXCLUSIVELY, let me know. Not every piece of information is citable, however, I believe given the undeniable origins of the image macro 'fingerprints', it is more than appropriate to attribute the name to original or common knowledge. Go google PTKFGS, tell me the results on the first ENTIRE PAGE don't represent some sort of NPOV issue with this guy's username.

214.13.141.100 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion, google Caturday, and note the same trend in results, only obviously attributable in nearly every mention of the word, to 4chan.

214.13.141.100 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia strongly requests that users assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. There are several users on these talk pages who are unrelated to 4chan, Something Awful, TYMND, etc, who are arguing against a rename of the article as well. When Time Magazine, as one example, writes about "Caturday" rather than "lolcats", then there might be more of an argument. The world beyond 4chan knows of this meme as "lolcats", and that is what Wikipedia considers most important. Resolute 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked Time Magazine isn't the expert on all web phenomena. I'd like to see some reputable source that these cat macros are indeed "lolcats", besides some cheap American news magazines. Maybe some copyrights Ninja337 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, /b/ and thus Caturday has gained popularity outside of North America, more so than "lolcats" has, so Caturday has more international usage, which wikipedia aims for. If you compare lolcats and Caturday in Swedish google, Caturday has around 400 more results.Ninja337 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia is that way ←. We go by what the reliable sources use to describe them, which is lolcats. The only RS I see that mentions caturday CALLS THE IMAGE MACROS THEMSELVES LOLCATS, and only mentioned Caturday AS A PLACE WHERE THEY SHOWED UP. Calling it Caturday is WP:OR which goes against a number of policies and guidelines. Feel free to make a section on Caturday if you can provide WP:RS from a WP:NPOV, but renaming the article Caturday is not an option --lucid 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, but facts are facts. Trolls exist, and when dealing with the chan communities they're quite intelligent, crafty, and tactful. This sort of thing is the perfect crime to a ytmnd/sa user. In cases like this it's simply a matter of which faction member holds more clout on WP. Lets simplify this and say that these are obvious 4chan imagemacros (for the font and style reasons above) and that 4chan created the vast majority of them, and that 4chan refers to it as Caturday and not by some absurd attempt at a 'web 2.0' catchphrase. 'It's caturday! Post some ******* cats!' That's it, no lolcats ever. Since the word 'cats' is obviously not going to direct here, I believe caturday as the name of the phenom is apropriate. I don't believe what OTHER PEOPLE call something is a valid point, seeing as the people who created them themselves call them something else. Van Gogh painted 'Scream' and called it 'Scream', if some art critics from NYT and WSJ started calling it 'Yell', the name of the piece does not change to 'Yell', no matter how reuptable the source is. I think it's easy to see this is a meme that originated on 4chan through imagemacros, where the user community came to call it caturday, and the images themsevles simply cats. You dont see anyone saying 'Its caturday, post some ******* lolcats!' 214.13.142.178 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting your signature on an extra line, it's extremely annoying. And yes, Wikipedia does go by the common name sources use, not the correct name. We don't have anything but a redirect at Liberty Enlightening the World, and especially if we didn't even have a reliable source that calls it that we wouldn't mention it, as we don't here. Your comments are entirely advocating WP:OR, which is unacceptable. --lucid 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If they did, that'd be two sources while the vast majority of the others, as previously stated, refer to it as lolcat. What we'd do in that case is deal with it the same way that we do caturday in the lead, or, if it got complicated enough, an etymology section. See the manual of style pages referred to every time this same argument is brought up. MrZaius^talk 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to rename the article, a VFD is fine too. The fact is, there are no reliable sources that say these cat macros are called "lolcats". The only sources we have in the article are novelty news articles written by ill-informed American journalists who lack research. Ninja337 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but on Wikipedia, we consider sources like Time, major daily newspapers, books, etc., to be reliable, and unedited/unvetted Internet forums like 4chan, YTMND, blogs, personal pages, and the like not to be reliable. That's policy, and if you believe that it somehow does not serve the needs of Wikipedia, there are various places to bring that up and discuss it. However, asserting that for this one article we should ignore WP:RS and WP:OR and discard reliable sources in favor of informal Internet sources is not really an option. --MCB 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll make changes in the article to reflect that then.Ninja337 02:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done I selected the username to confuse YTMND vandals. I have changed it. Now, let us continue the discussion. —BurnDownBabylon 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How is Time magazine any good for internet memes. It is quite obvious that 4chan created this meme like so many other memes but on wikipedia little is show about 4chan. 4chan has made a huge impact on internet culture. Maybe you should try reading about the history of the chans instead of what some middle aged journalist from time magazine that doesnt even know the internet is a series of tubes. Why even write about this as it takes at least a year to understand the chans and their many memes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.42.8 (talk • contribs)

Saturdays, or 'Caturdays'.

I thought it was proclaimed that 'everyday shall be caturday' in the rules of the internet. -Anonymous --68.9.193.246 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is. If you can't tell, basically wikipedia hates Anon, along with YTMND, SA, the GNAA (18 AFD! W00T!) and the rest of us. They are being lulzkillers and using citation to kill Caturday, despite "lolcats" being a marketing term. Just like The Game, we just need someone to say it on TV or write some article on it in a major newspaper, and Wiki will be forced to accept us. -Anonymous 68.1.79.246 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This page makes mention of Caturday, but, again, the predominate term (be it overly commercial or not), especially when it's the only one that can be reliably sourced as a title for the overarching phenomenon, should be reflected in the page title. It's common sense, not a conspiracy theory. MrZaius^talk 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What reliable sources Ninja337 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The print newspaper sources that refer to the phenomenon w/"lolcat" and only make passing reference to caturday as an event where the pictures are posted. No reliable sources suggest that caturday A: Preceded the term lolcat, or B: Is an appropriate label for the overarching phenomenon. MrZaius^talk 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Caturday preceded "lolcat", "lolcat" is a product of the noob media.] also how do i god damn sage here... -Anonymous --84.54.161.164 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't 4chan. --Carnildo 18:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, given some sort of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, there would be absolutely no issue with covering caturday in 4chan, discussing the origins of the phenomenon here, etc. Would be quite desirable to flesh things out, given the availability of strong sources. MrZaius^talk 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in discussing the ramifications of this caturday versus lolcats issue in a more abstract way? And if so, should it be done here? Nobody who really knows the subject would deny that the origin of these cat memes originated in caturday threads on the 4chan image board. However, do to the nature of 4chan (whose threads rarely last an hour, far less a day, day and are then lost forever) and Wikipedia rules and dogma regarding citations and sources, it would appear to be completely impossible to present on Wikipedia a factual account of the origin of this internet phenomenon. And the problem may be worse than that - in this entry wikipedia is in a real sense creating its own false reality which will then, when disseminated into the wider world, replace the real reality and become the accepted truth (which can then become re-referrenced in the wikipedia article reinforcing the new reality even more). Although cat photos with funny captions are a trivial subject, what is there to stop the same process happening to much more important subjects? Meowy 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is less a case of wikiality than a case where the popular press is using a different word from that the vocal minority of 4chan users is pushing. However, once again, sourced information about the origin of the phenomenon would be more than welcome. There's no way to demonstrate the that your account is a "factual" account without those sources. MrZaius^talk 09:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have written the start of the first sentence better, it should have said "Anyone who knows about the subject..." The above editor, by placing the word factual in inverted commas clearly does not know the subject. MrZaius, I don't think there is anything useful you could contribute to the specific discussion I have sugested having. The actual subject of my comments, the troubling implications of having a difference between "Wikipedia truth" and "real truth", seems to be lost on you. Maybe here is not the place to have an indepth exploration of those implications, but neither is the wikiality entry, where the influences and failings of Wikipedia as treated as just a joke. Meowy 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NB, the domain name caturday.com was registered in April 2005, and caturday.org was registered in October 2005. Evidence enough that "caturday" preceeds "lolcat". Meowy 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And longcat.com was registered in April 1998! Meowy 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a caturday article. We need a smoldering wikicrater where the lolcat article is now, and one less lolcats.com on the internet. Ninja337 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can has solution? If the article is about a phenomenon that DID start at 4chan as "caturday," then why does no one reference archived threads from 4chanarchive.org? It can't be that difficult to search for the word "caturday" and find a reasonably old thread. The internets aren't as difficult as you people make them out to be. Lurk moar. -134.84.102.195 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a tertiary source, Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources as references, not primary sources. Also, message boards are not considered reliable sources, so 4chan's forums cannot be used as a reference. If a reliable secondary soruce states that the meme started at 4chan, then we have something to work with. Even if we can logically assume that it did originate at 4chan, Wikipedia puts focus on verifiability, not truth. We need a valid source. Resolute 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

4chanarchive is technically a secondary source though. It merely archives the original thread that existed on 4chan. It does not alter the original content in any manner. In fact, a quick search for caturday reveals this page: http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=17033053&x=Caturday. The fifth post has a rather interesting picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.57.209 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is still a primary source. It is simply a copy of the original content. A secondary source uses the primary source to write about the topic. And, as mentioned, message/image boards are not reliable sources anyway. Resolute 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, there's a picture of the 'I can has cheezburger?' cat sitting right there, with a date attached to the post that declares it was posted in december 2006. Doesn't wikipedia use any primary sources at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.57.209 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Let me preface this by saying that I don't have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, and I'm bringing this up as an honest concern. I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to reference itself, yet the first image does just that. Or another way of looking at it, I thought Wikipedia's content was supposed to be independent of the media it's being stored on, that the data should be just as meaningful if printed on paper as when hosted on Wikipedia's servers, yet, outside of the context of Wikipedia, that first image is not a particularly good example of a lolcat. Isn't this a problem? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I have purged the "editing ur articles" image and moved the "help wif ur shopping" image to the top. —BurnDownBabylon 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted. There is the most consensus to use the WP image, see #Which image?. I encourage you to discuss there. The discussion has stalled. i ^said 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps consensus wasn't reached, so here is a new discussion. User:I (I'm sorry, but I don't see how else to refer to you since your username is a common pronoun), it seems like your opinion on the matter is in the minority based on the discussion to which you referred me. Most from above don't find the Wikipedia cat image to be the most appropriate as the main example of the article. 4 people (Pistolen08, EmoDeathMachine, Tomgreeny, Gracenotes) appear to think a better image should be used as the main example while only three (yourself, Lucid, Viradae) find that image to be most appropriate. 2 more (myself and BurnDownBabylon) have also expressed disapproval. I don't know the exact definition of consensus in this context, but I think we should switch the placement of the images for the time being, until more people support your take on the matter. That said, I will, however, wait for your response before doing so. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Switching the placement is certainly fine, and I would encourage you to do just that if you believe it is a good thing to do. As far as WP:ASR goes, I can see the concern, but at the same time, this is an image rather than text. Per your argument, I believe that given how popular Wikipedia itself is these days, it is unlikely that someone seeing that image on a mirror site (which, iirc, is the main driver for WP:ASR) would not understand the caption. I am also loathe to remove a free image on an article where it makes perfect sense to be there. Resolute 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now there have been a bunch of reverts. I am afraid to touch the article because someone with more edits than me is going to swoop down with a million WP:(some uppercase letters)-style policies and tell me how I don't know anything about wikipedia. If I'm lucky, I'll end up with some warnings on my talk page too. I said what I wanted to, so I think I'll just avoid that whole mess. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't really feel that way; your opinion is just as important as anyones. As for consensus, numbers do not make it. There is probably no consensus, but there is not a consensus to use something other than the WP one. I don't know if there is a hierarchy among license preferences, but the WP one is public domain, and the others, while free, aren't. But I don't think that matters. At any rate, you are correct now. There is, now, leaning towards a consensus of using a different image than the WP one. However, there is no consensus as to what one. Until that time, I would suggest we leave the WP one, only because that has been the one here for a while. We should decide what image to use instead of the WP one, should consensus go that way. i ^said 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a consensus to override WP:ASR. We have an image that adequately illustrates the topic. Why do we need a second one that violates the established guidelines of the manual of style? —BurnDownBabylon 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I dislike this argument, I am going to use it. WP:ASR is a guideline, not a policy. Thus, we don't always have to follow it. It doesn't say anything about images, so we also don't have to follow it. And the shopping one is the second one. This one was created for the article, and is PD. I'd rather use PD than CC by SA. I wont revert your change, but I respectfully ask you do, until this is decided. i ^said 00:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a guideline that this community follows very consistently, and it is one that we should follow in this case. The suggestion that its applicability here is limited because it does not explicitly mention images is obviously specious.

The shopping image is in fact the first image. The specially created image was added on 7 July.

While I too prefer public domain images, CC-BY-SA is sufficiently free for inclusion. Self-referential material, on the other hand, reduces the portability of Wikipedia content to other projects. This article is licensed as free for anyone to republish. We should expect that they will, and not place on them the additional burden of determining where contributers decided to include self-referential content, despite our community consensus to avoid it when possible.

I think the fact that it was made specifically for this article also weighs against the image: if this were not an image, we would likely call that original research.

Lastly, I am not the one that made the most recent edit. Let us hear from Burntsauce before asking him to revert it. —BurnDownBabylon 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

← Ah, I hadn't checked the history to see the reverts. Sorry. But at any rate, there are only two lolcat images (that I know of) now, the other one was deleted. I dont really know how I feel about the WP one as opposed to the shopping one; I know yours, so we should wait for other opinions. i ^said 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of no policy or rule that says we need consensus to override WP:ASR, neverminding the fact that ASR doesn't even mention images. Obviously, I am in the group that would like to see the image restored, but like User:I, I am not going to revert war over it. Hell, since it is PD, the easy solution is for someone to change the caption text to "Im in ur encyclopedia...editing ur articles." That would resolve the issue without the need to delete a perfectly valid image. Resolute 04:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not have a specific policy expressly requiring a consensus to override the manual of style; to require one here is a strawman argument. The general practice at the English Wikipedia is to follow policy and guidelines in the absence of consensus to override it. That's the nature of how policy and guidelines are used here.

Images with self-referential content are harmful to the encyclopedia's mission in just the same way that text is. Please do not continue to assert that WP:ASR does not specifically and literally mention image files; this argument is so obviously specious that it is insulting to hear it repeated again.

Why do you believe we should override the manual of style here? What benefits does this image provide that outweigh the costs of the self-referential content? I'm asking this regardless of whether you feel there's a rule that compels you to answer.

Lastly, I encourage you to edit the image with the new caption you have suggested. I just hope you will be working from the original image, not the captioned one. —BurnDownBabylon 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, the reason WP:ASR is not valid in this case is the logic test. The purpose of ASR is so that phrases like "Wikipedia believes..." does not appear on a mirror like answers.com. However, Wikipedia is so well known that even on a mirror site, this specific image still conveys the intended message with no challenge at all. The image is an example of what the article says, while the use of "Wikipedia" also serves as an example, rather than the focus. The image remains perfectly valid on any mirror site that hosts this article as a result. Frankly, I find the use of WP:ASR as an excuse to remove the image to be specious.

As far as changing the caption goes, 1. I do not have access to the original, and 2. My skills with MS Paint are insufficient to create a high quality alternate. I will leave that change to someone with better image editing skills than I. Resolute 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All the web browser articles feature screenshots of the browser displaying the Wikipedia homepage, so WP:ASR would appear to not apply to images. TRS-80 16:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

While I realise that WP is not supposed to be a link collection, I do feel there's a need for more relevant links to the cream of the crop regarding lolcats sites. As the WP article is ranked 3rd on Google when searching for "lolcats", a lot of people will come here to find some quality links, rather than browse through the abundance of trash sites every 11-year old and his brother have made. At the moment, three sites are being linked to and only one of them is actually worth anything (icanhascheezburger.com). However, any changes made to the links are immediately reverted, usually by anonymous users. Lasse Houmøller 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason any of those obviously commercial sites are still listed is because they are repeatedly mentioned in the article's mainstream press sources. ie, even icanhascheezburger shouldn't be covered in the absence of press coverage. However, given the sources I mentioned above in this talk page, it's actually gained coverage enough that it would meet WP:NOTE as a separate article. You inserted it the lolcatz site in place of another site and falsely attributed it to the other's source. Of course it was removed. MrZaius^talk 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm defending the anon's position rather than my own edits :) Didn't realize I was suckered into rv'ing the wrong links. The Macrocat one is the correct one, apparently. That said, neither it not the nor the lolcats.com are easily verified any longer, as the sources have now disappeared from the websites for their papers. Weird that they'd bother deleting archival material, making double checking these things a touch more difficult. MrZaius^talk 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise I was abusing the sources, I'm sort of new to this and it wasn't my intention. It was however the intention to remove the Macrocats gallery since it's fairly useless and not covered in the article. I still feel that having quality links is vital for an article such as this.Lasse Houmøller 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would you view the Macrocats site as useless? It's updated daily with fresh content and has been mentioned in several articles. MrZaius, would it be possible to link to an archive service for the now-deleted articles? Desertdwell 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth searching on google news for a string from those articles or something - They might turn up on the Lexis thing. MrZaius^talk 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we only link to sites being mentioned by some media source somewhere? I'd think that it would be wiser to only link to sites that actually benefitted the end user, ie. popular and well thought out sites, like www.icanhascheezburger.com or www.lolcatz.net Lasse Houmøller 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The initial reason for that restriction was to prevent the page from becoming a link farm. I don't know that much about the lolcats "movement", so if anyone familiar wants to suggest a list of worthwhile links, we can discuss that on the talk page. JavaTenor 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for being a robot. - CobaltBlueTony 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the three links because they are links leading to commerical sites that exist to obtain money from advertisements through page views. Anyone who wishes to find cat memes and macros can easily locate them on numerous other sites (for example, http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/index.html?flow=no&large=no and katurday.com - both of which do not have advertising). Meowy 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you've got to be kidding. That's just around the lamest reasoning I've ever heard. Besides being a blatant proof of your obvious lack of knowledge regarding online advertising, it would also mean that sites such as icanhascheezburger.com would not be allowed. Is that really what you want? Lasse Houmøller 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what he wants, and he's got solid ground to stand on. Arguably straight in line with WP:EL. Again, the only reason those other commercial sites were posted to the external links was that they were repeatedly mentioned by our cited sources. Please review WP:EL. MrZaius^talk 16:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't see a difference between historical articles concerning say World War II and lolcats? It seems to be a very rigid interpretation of the WP:EL to me. People come here for information, you know, and external links to sites with lolcats is just that. It's like saying that an article about BMW cannot link to bmw.com because of its commercial nature. Really... Lasse Houmøller 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From the most cursory review of the linked guidelines: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." There is no "official site" for this term. It would be bad form to link to eBay or MySpace anywhere but eBay and MySpace, because, again, they're the "official site." Note that I did not remove the commercial links, I simply explained why they were removed and that the editor who did so had a fairly decent grounding in policy. On the odd WWII point, no, there plainly is no different guideline that governs links placed there. A cursory review of World War II#External links will reveal that none are ad-sponsored blogs. MrZaius^talk 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My objection to those links was a feeling that it would be better to link to a website that does not have financial reasons to want to get as many visitors as possible. The www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/ website would be a better alternative if the purpose of the link is to give the reader an idea of what the article is about. The only problem is that that website is horribly badly designed: 500+ images loading on a single page, and not all have captions. Meowy 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your concern regarding commercially driven sites, but there are two arguments against this: First of all only the "top dawgs" of these sites make any money at all (like icanhascheezburger.com) and it's already listed here anyway, because of other articles mentioning it. Secondly as you yourself state, the non-profit ones are horribly designed and it's not really beneficial to the end users. Lasse Houmøller 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For consideration: roflcat.com. The term roflcat was used heavily before icanhascheezburger.com pretty much made the term lolcat official in Jan 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.90.16 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for consideration: ihasahotdog.com It seems to be related to icanhascheezburger.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.140.3 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to prune the external links again? They've crept up to a total of 11, from 3, and there's ongoing revert wars on positioning. TRS-80 (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Catchan? --80.58.205.97 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I give a hoot - but IHasAFlavor.com gets my vote as it's the only one that doesn't make your eyes hurt when you look at it lol -Trevor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.75.99 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I Has A Flavor should be added to this list permanently. a) It is the only site that is custom made (opposed to an open source blog) b) looks good and c) It takes a much different direction then the rest of the sites. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboi11x (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help requested at I Can Has Cheezburger?

Any editors willing to help at I Can Has Cheezburger? would be appreciated! --Iamunknown 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I redirected it here. It was at AfD, and I would prefer not go through that. However, feel free to do whatever, including reverting me, adding material to the "History" section of this article, et cetera. --Iamunknown 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this, the Lolcats website was targeted by /b/ after its appropriation and watermarking of cat images created for 4chan (http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=LolCats). Did the same thing happen to I Can Has Cheezburger? NB, the disparity between the date the lolcat domain name was created, and the website's targetting by /b/ suggests that the actual website only went online at the end of 2006. Meowy 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hard tellin', and doubly hard finding WP:RS to find anything to back up 4chan-related claims, apparently. That said, the vast majority of the posts to the site were funneled through the Cat Factory and the site itself is posted under a Creative Commons license (noncommercial, strangely enough). Unclear as to whether or not he asserts that the license applies to the photos as well. MrZaius^talk 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this linked to somehow from this page?

We really should use this image somewhere:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Wikipedia-lolcat.jpg

Mathiastck 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would direct you to #Which image? and #Image. — i ^said 00:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

#Image, with its avoid self-referencing argument, is, well, I'd better not say since I don't want a ban. I'm surprised someone didn't come up with the reasoning that it shouldn't be there because it encourages cats to vandalise Wikipedia! That said, a real caturday cat would be pictured editing the entry for the John F. Kennedy assassination, writing that it was a dog hired by eBaums that done it. Meowy 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lolrus

Hello ^_^ when i searched "Lolrus", it sent me to Lolcat ;_; I wanna read about the lolrus! not the lolcat! T________T ~ Hanii Puppy / !!!Chris!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.109.228 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid point. It is covered in the Wall Street Journal article linked in the external lniks. Wikipedia:Be bold and add coverage of the walrus based on that piece, and it'll stick. MrZaius^talk 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, the real-life animal the meme was based on died about 2 years ago. I wonder if they have buckets in walrus heaven? A more relevent question might be, which was coined first - lolrus or lolcat? Meowy 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a page name like LOLAnimal or something would be better and disscuss all the forms because theres more than just pictures of cats. (Eg: dogs, rabbits ect) Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is why citations can get annoying. The original source of the bucket walrus macro has never used that term; in fact, this term was invented by the article writer; it did not appear before that. I do not see how one article that mentions 'i has a bucket' (his common pseudomyn) is suddenly a legitimate source of nomenclature; it is not even related to cat macros, you might as well stick every animal with a macro that 4chan ever cranked out in this article; good look searching macrochan for over 9000 years. Oh, I just thought of that- Macrohan has timestamps on when images are archived, would not the timestamps of cat macros from years ago be valid justification for the name change? I am making a new section on this...
And might I add, we collectively mourn the loss of our poor poor walrus... may he forever have buckets in that big Bel-Air in the sky.... 68.1.81.110 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the timestamps would not be valid justification for a name change, becuase the most common name is lolcat. Resolute 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This walrus was quite a popular attraction in Japan and might warrant it's own article beside the lolrus meme. Ninja337 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Pretty sure lolcat doesn't count as a portmanteau word. x-ref with page for portmanteau. --64.9.12.65 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in agreement on this. Lolrus would be a portmanteau, but "lolcat" doesn't sound like anything more than just two words butted together. There's no doubt a better word for it than the inaccurate portmanteau. Howa0082 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This comes up all the time - Past edit summaries asserted that it's a compound word with a similar explanation. Well meaning editors occasionally replace that link with portmanteau, but the former does seem far more apt. MrZaius^talk 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Compound word is far more accurate than portmanteau. Resolute 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, lolcat is an amalgamation of 'lol' and 'cat'? ORLY?! I'm not sure why we need all of two citations to confirm this...

History

"The use of "lolcat" to describe the phenomenon was introduced no later than June 14, 2006 when the domain name "lolcats.com" was registered."

The term seems to have been used as early as April 29, according to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes[1]

That was me Steve 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, getting the right year would help ... oops Steve 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "roflcat" also gain popularity starting in November 2006. People pronounced it roffle-cat. roflcat.com was registered and active site on November 23rd, 2006. Before icanhascheezburger.com was launched the term lolcat and roflcat were pretty much neck and neck. icanhascheezburger.com pushed the term lolcat which eventually took over. Looking at alexa stats, roflcat.com is still a pretty popular site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.90.16 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lolcatbible

Should there be a mention here? 124.169.18.218 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel there's a need to mention it, personally. Beyond the fact that not much has been "translated" yet, any attempt to place a mention or link in the article invariably seems to lead to revert wars. Howa0082 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, lolcatbible has been mentioned here, here, and here. It is recognized as a separate project and has stood out among lolcat based sites, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.87.126 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Two of those are kinda borderline WP:RSes, being blogs, and the first site is a blog aggregator. However, the BBC report is coverage of the blogosphere, rather than a blog itself. Feel free to add it back and source it - multiple reliable sources are needed to demonstrate adequate notability for independent coverage, but one WP:RS and two borderline ones are more than adequate for coverage within a parent topic. MrZaius^talk 01:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Added lolcatbible back, added reference to BBC broadcast. And I would agree with your summation on the sources needed for parent. The problem with internet memes is they don't often make it to outside sources/maintream publications, and most of the references in this article link to the same two references. 63.65.166.90 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

About the part where the Bible is refered to as "Holy Bible"

I'd like to know whether there is some consensus on how to refer the Bible as - Holy Bible seems somewhat Christian - biased, because I, as an atheist, consider the bible not the least bit holy. I was considering just changing it to "Bible" but figured I'd run it through someone first, seeing as how I am a new editor. --84.90.46.116 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change from Holy Bible to Bible. It just seemed sooo biased. If anyone's opinion diverges, please, reply here. --84.90.46.116 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not even certain that sentence belongs. Random websites involving lolcats do not have greater notability because they call themselves "projects". Resolute 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to place that thing as an external link like the other lolcat websites? Would make more sence IMO. --84.90.46.116 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be given cursory coverage. It's sourceable, and only one or two sources away from independent note (although, of course, it still makes more sense to deal with it here). That said, I don't see why we dab it at all. Why pipe the "Christian Bible" link at all? MrZaius^talk 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Was linked as Holy Bible which seemed pro-christian bias, there are people who don't find that bible holy. But it's solved now. --84.90.46.116 10:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

change from cuteness to stupidness

Hi there--In the intro to the article it says:

"O RLY? owl,[5] but the cuteness of cats enhances[6] the appeal and increasing prominence[7] of the Internet meme."

"cuteness" should be changed to something that reflects the idiocy of the cats involved. Stupidness would be good. Lolcats are funny because they are portrayed as barely speaking English and are found in a variety of inane and mockable situations not because they are adorable.

Thanks!

--Fitzmadrid (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just out-and-out removed the rest of the sentence; the statement works all the better without it, with "cuteness" and "stupidness" being largely personal opinions about the meme, and opinions have no place in an encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Laugh-Out-Loud Cats

[2]

Thus Guy claims that his grandfather Aloysius "Gorilla" Koford produced a series of newspaper strips around 1912 which is actually the root of the lolcats phrase, is his claim true? or is it a marketing ploy to sell his cartoons? Or is it that the first few are legit, and hes just been making new ones to continue his grandfathers comic with modern references?

--58.110.128.212 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[3] Seems this link has answered my question. --58.110.128.212 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Variants

Section seems to contain references to unreliable sources - stuff anyone could make up, not appropriate for what intends to be a high-quality encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In ur base

I thought this was a variant (a lolcat variant?) of All your base. Are they different? Jd2718 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "In ur base" is from CounterStrike, or some similar online crapfest of a game. As in "In ur base killin ur doodz". Howa0082 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources

I found a few articles from UK newspapers that mention lolcats, someone might want to use these to add to the article:

• http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1772506.ece
• http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2507875.ece
• http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2364184.ece
• http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1842830.ece
• http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3216033.ece
• http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2979891.ece
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2229937,00.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/nanimals129.xml

-- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lolrus redirect and self-reference

This article no longer even mentions the lolrus except in the vaguest possible terms, although that redirects here. Also, although the lolcat sample is lovely and properly licensed, it seems to violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference in that it references Wikipedia as an example for no particular reason. Better would be something more generic. Dcoetzee 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested a solution for the lolrus redirect and also the LOLCat Bible Translation Project article over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCat Bible Translation Project, which might interest people here. Would like to hear some opinions. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

external link addition

I have added 4chan.org as that is where lolcats originated from, so is relevant.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As per your query, 4chan has already been credited and linked in the main article, and does not belong in the external links as the site itself is not relevant to lolcats. Please see previous discussions concerning the external links section (specifically September 07). --72.193.84.13 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry can't find it, you'd better link me to them.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lolcat#External_links --72.193.84.13 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

4chan is not mentioned there.--Seriousspender (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the main article, on the article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat#History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.84.13 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you going to give any real reason why it should not be in the external links section instead of just avoiding the question?--Seriousspender (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How did I not answer your question with my first response here? 4chan itself is not a lolcats site - this article is specifically about lolcats. Therefor, 4chan as an external link in the external links section is not relevant. --72.193.84.13 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If 4chan is credited properly, why should they be an external link, more than a reference? 4chan, may it never die, IS an 18+ site. And that aside, through 4chan birthed the idea, it's not an exclusive 4chan meme anymore. They're on all the chans, MySpace, LiveJournal, and pretty much anywhere people post images. Mfrisk (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)