Talk:Lolcode: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:19, 10 June 2007

LOLCODE

C'mon! This deserves a Article, LOLCODE was even mentioned in Linux.com [1]- 121.247.185.154 13:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLZ IM IN UR WIKEEPEEDIAZ DEELTN UR PAGEZ.

This is so stupid, why has it been deleted?

The reason on why it was deleted and discussion about it isn't available anymore because you fools deleted the original talk page as well.

Whoever deleted this is a moron. I've been hearing this word nonstop and I finally decided to figure out what it means. I guess I'll have to do that somewhere else, wonder if Sanger's encyclopedia has it? ````

--

Guys, the language is a joke and not meant for practical purposes, that's true. But to deter people from providing information about it, that's just silly. There has recently been an article on Linux.com and there are even interpreters such as this one. I came looking for some information and found a rather unpleasant 'protected page' message. Even [Brainfuck] has its own page! Please review your decision. 201.34.229.242 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point in protecting this page from creation. The language has a pretty serious following already. Jredwards 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki unprotect this article

This is just more wiki BS. I saw an article on Digg about Linux.com's write up on LOLCODE and as I do with anything I find new, I went to the Wiki right away to learn up on it. And what do I see when I get here? A page not created? No, that would of been fine. Instead I see a mother fucking protected page for an article that has real meaning. The Wiki has strayed far from its original path in the 3 years I have known it... 68.226.118.115 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia has plenty of articles on individual absurd languages. Why protect from recreation? It seems to me like the consensus on AfD was to merge into lolcat until the language became signifigant enough (and given how quickly its popularity is spreading, it's just a matter of time) to stand alone as a notable enough subject. Y U HAET LOLCODE? I CAN'T HAS RTICUL? --Nintendorulez talk 19:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable right now, although I expect it shall be soon. It's certainly within Wikipedia's scope. Gracenotes^T § 05:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Why not have this be a protected redirect to Lolcat? It would still keep people from recreating it, and it would be at least somewhat useful, whereas the deletedpage template isn't. --Rory096 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: similar discussion here. I think that this subject is a good example of something encyclopedic that would be in our scope, except that it's almost too early to tell. I hate to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but most other articles about esoteric languages have only external links to specs/discussion groups for the language, and maybe one or two links to a self-published source referring to the language. Gracenotes^T § 06:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ==Redirect==
 Why not have this be a protected redirect to [[Lolcat]]? It would still keep people from recreating it, and it would be at least somewhat useful, whereas the deletedpage template isn't. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
+:Note: similar discussion [[Talk:Lolcat#LOLCODE|here]]. I think that this subject is a good example of something encyclopedic that would be in our scope, except that it's almost too early to tell. I hate to say [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], but most other articles about esoteric languages have only external links to specs/discussion groups for the language, and maybe one or two links to a self-published source referring to the language. [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> § 06:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)