Talk:Lolcode

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lolcode has been redirected to LOLCODE. Please post all future talk about this article at Talk:LOLCODE. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

--

I came here looking for this page. I think it's a worthy topic. JimmycurN 07:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite horrified that this page has been deleted. This is a recognised programming language with serious effort being put into its growth and evolution at [2] and [3]. I see no reason why this page cannot be restored. The original page was reasonably wellmade and at least provided a solid foundation to build on. Very disgruntled. --Ceridwyn 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that it's a "recognized programming language" is overstating the case, but this is a valid example of another esoteric programming language, if not one that is particularly interesting beyond its amusement value. kraemer 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Indeed, I have just come to see what this Lolcode is about and no dice. It's certainly within Wikipedia's scope. User:Alex 11 June 2007

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)

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)

For now, however, I think that a protected redirect might work best. Gracenotes^T § 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have started a deletion review, because I feel that over the past six weeks enough has happened with Lolcode to void the previous AfD-debate. The language now receives about 750,000 Google-hits (whereas Malbolge receives only 20,000), and there is a definition of Lolcode v1.0.

Please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and post your opinions.

Hymyly^T@C 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why even was this deleted? Where did the discussion page go? Is someone playing Wiki Crusader again? This is a project that returns approaching 750,000 google results, and has a large and growing community. Why is even a stub article inappropriate? Patch86 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to old review, for reference's sake

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12 MrZaius^talk 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is popular internet language

Lolcode is a popular humor item on the internet. There are many pictures that are captioned in lolcode to provide humor. There are many pages on Wikipedia on less significant topics, and a page on it on Wikipedia would be usefull to many. Somebody please make a page about lolcode with history, useage, and links ASAP.

Protected edit request

{{editprotected}}

This page was redirected to Image macro as part of a unilateral merge, which turned out to be against consensus. Could it be re-redirected towards Lolcat? Gracenotes^T § 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done by Ryulong. Gracenotes^T § 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(another one)

{{editprotected}}

Please re-target this redirect to Lolcat#lolcode? Thanks. Gracenotes^T § 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I is in ur articles makin ur protected editz. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Prod tag added

Prod tag added. This is a fake programming language based on a joke web page, no more. Tempshill 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of an esoteric programming language, which Wikipedia covers encyclopedically. This does not look like a joke to me. Most fake programming languages don't have compilers and interpreters written by many people using multiple frameworks. On top of that, lolcode is mentioned by a reliable source—while perhaps not notable enough for an article, a brief section should be fine. Gracenotes^T § 22:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.