Talk:Internet slang/Archive 2

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Simply having a list of internet slang terms and meanings would be more concrete and useful than this claptrap. 70.231.243.10 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * I'm personally in favour of keeping LOL in its own article. I feel lol is notable enough to warrant its own article, with 176 million Ghits and several good quality references from independent sources. Lol is even used in more everyday speach by people like Charlie Brooker (here). My opinion is there is enough distinct information on lol that it should have its own entry with a brief summary in this one. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a keep per h2g2bob. LOL is definitely one of the most used acronyms on the net right now.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll say merge because it's basically in the same category. Deletion Quality 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge that confused article, much of which is about "ROTFL" anyway. We read above: I feel lol is notable enough to warrant its own article, with 176 million Ghits (emphasis added). Feel has 550 million; it lacks an article here -- and quite rightly, as WP is not a dictionary. Additionally, I'm underwhelmed by my first try at looking up the "good quality references" for the significance of the use of these rather tiresome but anyway linguistically uninteresting terms. -- Hoary 09:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's far from confused. And much of it is not about ROTFL, any more than it is specifically about LOL.  Some of it is about both.  However, that's an argument for renaming it (I've thought that for a long time a better name is in order.), not an argument for merger, given that there are elements of Internet slang that it most definitely isn't about. As for your failure to find good quality references, I suggest (a) following the link that h2g2bob gave above and (b) using Google Scholar to find academic papers instead of using Google Web to find web log postings.  When you do, you'll see how the sources often separate the smileys and emoticons from the (laughter) slang initialisms. (This paper in JCMC separates the twain, for example, calling LOL, ROTFL, et al. "disclaimers".) Uncle G 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * h2g2bob hits the nail right on the head. A merger is not a good idea.  Summary style, just as is used for the discussions of emoticons, is the way to go here.  The problem to be addressed is not a merger of a sourced article into here.  It is sorting out the unsourced mess of this article, so that it is more in line with what sources actually say.  Doing that will reveal that there's plenty of scope for separate articles. It is this article that is the confused one, in part because it appears to have grown as an accumulation of original research and yet another attempt to write a folk dictionary, rather than as encyclopaedic content based upon sources.  Ironically, what is in fact  needed is the same sort of attention to finding sources that have analysed Internet slang, to adding verifiable content to this article that is actually based upon them, and to removing original research and folk dictionaries and keeping them removed, that editors gave to LOL (Internet slang).  Merger isn't anything to do with that, and doesn't help it in the least.  Uncle G 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepIf someone is on line and they read LoL and they wonder what it means they are going to go to Wikipedia and type LoL, not Internet slang. Many people may not see it for Internet slang, but youth slang, or my not place it in the construct interent slang.  Merging would reduce the usefullness of the information and give this meme over to Google, which Wikipedia is proving to be good at. (Rhooker1236 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Incredibly strong keep. The slang "LOL" is extremely common, moreso than all other internet slang, and merits its own page.
 * Strong keep in accordance with reasons given by h2g2bob and Uncle G. Sir Fastolfe 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

NO! It dosen't need to be merged. 72.196.128.120 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, don't care :P


 * Merge..."LOL" defiantly doesn't need its own article.Spartyboy40 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It would be just like merging [Adidas] w/ sportswear. [LOL (lol)] got plenty of encyclopedic content. Indeed, [Internet slang] can be expanded easily w/o needing to fill it w/ 'lol' content. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Definitely a notable enough word with enough history/info to be kept as its own article. I found the article after genuinely typing "lol wikipedia" in to google, in the aim of getting some information on it. I would have been quite disappointed to have found it existing only as a section in another article. 203.59.186.165 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am for keeping a seperate LOL page as it is by far the most recognizable slang term. I would rewrite the article to include strictly LOL related text.  Then we could move most of the other information to a newer and more complete list, including new keywords such as Leet, 1337, and ROFLCOPTER, etc... --- Waldospe


 * People search for lol on google. Well I did, because it's so popular. They don't search for "internet slang". "LoL!"


 * Keep - please think of the children.


 * Strong Keep - lol is way, way, way too popular to not have its own article.

blah blah blah
((8w —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.30.255 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

BOL = BUSTIN OUT LAUGHING!!

Ok, what do you think?
I rewrote it, so I want to know whot people think of it now?

May 18 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge them!

86.145.189.178 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Strange Faerie Eire 86.145.189.178 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it deserves it's own page - 211.30.231.112 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The slang page needs...
needs a list of abbr.s and their meaning:

Such as:

lol - laugh out loud

lmao - laugh my ass off

rofl - rolling on the floor laughing

etc etc

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

What about having "in talk" (messenger/e-mails) abbr.s such as lol, lmao etc in a seperate section to "general" online abbr.s such as gaming slang such as mmorpg etc?

86.145.189.178 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Strange Faerie Eire 86.145.189.178 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * It's internet slang, but not global internet slang, it's basically a joke between a few sites, shouldn't be here. R oo Z 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering that too. Crowstar 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a joke, just not a good one. Like this -  -]: )  You like my hat?


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

According to NoSlang:

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

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

Deleted vandalism
'Abbreviations im so gayy are probably...'

How appropriate that an internet slang article be vandalised.

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

Just not very thorough
There are a lot of things missing and this article is disorganized.

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

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

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

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

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

I like pie
"I like pie" redirects here, but there's no mention of it in the article. ~Crowstar~ 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC) -- oKto  siTe _ talk   15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it being used much, don't know if it's popular enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Until it is included however, redirecting seems silly. I've put it up for discussion on WP:RfD here.

Mojibake
Is the term mojibake considered internet slang?

Merging the Article
I definitely think that merging this article into internet slang would be useful because it mentions a lot of things that is also in internet slang, such as leetspeak. It would be more useful to have one article that covers more than two medium-length articles.
 * It could yes, but then again, Internet Slang could become too large, more commonly used things such as PEBCAK could still keep their own article. Crazyboy899 11:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I think that this article needs a section for public opinions on the common usage of internet slangs. I've seen a lot of articles on how schools and such view slangs. Some say that it's a destruction of the English language, some say that it's creative and efficient. What you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFEice (talk • contribs)


 * I agree; I was surprised not to find much about criticism in this article. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

roflspam
someone needs to make an external link to http://roflspam.piczo.com/?cr=5&rfm=y - deprof July 2007

Origin verifiable?
The article claims emoticons originated with email, which is probably incorrect. Usenet existed before the Internet (for those who are unfamiliar, Usenet often propagates through the Internet, but it can and does use other means also, such as UUDP over phone lines and, in some places, by jeep and floppies) and I am reasonably sure I remember seeing emoticons in use in the old days. Does anyone have any citations for the claim in the article that emoticons originated with email? SmashTheState 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was about to mention how it'd be useful to have a "history of" section, rather than focus on specific examples. Some parts of the article seem like a list of examples in paragraph form. For example, I think we could incorporate the Creation of :-) and :-( into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miggyb (talk • contribs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



jF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.68.111 (talk) 15:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you, that there is a distinction, or was, at least for some people. But since reliable sources say that "smileys" can be textual (for example, http://www.answers.com/smiley&r=67) (I know it's only answers.com, but it's better than original research), it's probably best not to make a flat statement in the article that, by definition, they aren't textual. Wykily 09:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Origins of w00t
Deleted: It may also stem from a corruption of a phrase expressed if a boss in an MMOG such as World of Warcraft drops an exceptionally powerful or valuable item, which is "Wow - loot!"

The term "w00t" has been around FAR longer than World of Warcraft. It predates most modern MMORPGs. As such, it's inappropriate to base this words' origins to World of Warcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.206.38 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Some things that redirect here

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

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

This article needs locking and cleaning up. It's ridden with vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.178.225 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Must Merge
I hate to bang an old drum, but this really should be merged!! What about merging with Leet? (sry, I forgot how to make it a hyper link, just search "leet") That page has lots of slang on it, and maybe all the pages that redirect here can go there! Ima genius =) 66.68.210.249 03:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (krosstown86, just not signed in)

Vandalism
I was just thinking it might be a good idea to lock this to all outsiders who are not members, in the past few days theres been a whole bunch of vandalism, and it's not helping this article at all. Opinions? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just cleanup a load of **** and am still considering CSMF ?? (Think it needs deleting). Yes, Request Page Protection. Triwbe (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How do I do that? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's the List of Internet Slang?!
I remember a list some time ago, but when I searched for it, it said it was moved to wikitionary, but there's no article there. Does ANYONE know what happened to it?? Abcw12 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's at wikt:Appendix:Internet slang, you can also click the Wiktionary link in the box at the top right of the article to go there. PaleAqua 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, why was this bumped off to wiktionary? There was no need for that. Modest Genius  talk 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The request for deletion was at Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases (3rd nomination). The result was transwikify and delete. I still think that a few of the more commonly used and properly sourced entries should have been merged into this article as a mini glossary. PaleAqua (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia is not a manual or a how-to guide to answer any further questions.  нмŵוτн τ  18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, there it is. I'm gonna look at that discussion, because it's still a LIST of things in my opinion. P.S. That article wasn't there when I wrote this question. Abcw12 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about archiving this.... --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

HAWT
Where is the page on horizontal axis wind turbine? HAWT? I search and it came here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.114.182 (talk • contribs)
 * HAWT currently has no page, it is hawt that redirects to here. -- MacAddct &#xF8FF; 1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Any way we can get closer to the older versions?
If you look back through the history of this article to say October (as recent as 161767791) of 2007 or earlier, this article appears to be much better. The biggest flaw back are pretty much the same as now lack of citations, original research, and some random definitions that aren't necessary to explain thrown in. Online slang (aka Internet slang) has been around a long time, much of it is not that much different then the slang I saw 25 years ago on old BBS and early networks. Okay some of the slang like re- meaning again, as in rehi or the shorter re has fallen by the way side. Much of it (lol, rofl, :), etc) is still around, surly there are sources out there.. PaleAqua (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

misleading claim or something, I guess :)
The article states: 'A system also exists that uses purposely misspelled words and incorrect grammar and punctuation. This is usually called "Kitteh" or "LOLcat" because it originated as the captions for images of kittens.'

Very similar intentional misspellings/mispunctuations/mis...grammars have been used since long before lolcats. See B1FF &c. I think the best we could claim is that it is most strongly associated with the lolcats, but claiming they are the origin is kind of a broad stroke with a narrow brush. Eris Discord | Talk 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization (of the list)
so, I was was wondering if it would be ok with everyone to remake the list of common terms and make it so it is in Alphabetical order, if not would it be ok to have it done so that they are in groups (for example gg (good Game) would also be with gl (Good Luck) since they would be used together. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be not list, per Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:NOT).  нмŵוτн τ  03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A list of widely used internet abbreviations is NOT in any way a "manual, guidebook or textbook". That it is not a textbook should be clear. If one would add examples of when to use which 'slang term' in which manner, then it would be a guidebook. A list of abbreviations and a simple explanation of what it means does not guide the reader to do anything. Therefore the guideline WP:NOT is not immediately applicable here.77.249.119.206 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Expanding and improving this article
Wikipedia is the go-to source for a topic like this. So, with all the scholarly research and popular press this topic gets, why is our article not longer and better? I am not a linguist or social scientist (IANALOSS?), but CMC (computer-mediated communication) is a hot research topic in both those areas. betsythedevine (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL
I am fairly certain that if you check most websites or forums that employ internet slang "rofl" is far more common than "rotfl". You will also find that they are almost always written in lower case as the entire purpose of these statements is to increase communication speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.129.176 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Someone should bang up a page that talks about LOL and ROFL so we can 'fix' this and cite it. The term 'ROTFL' is used 80 per cent less than ROFL. Where did I pull this from I hear you ask. Google them both, look at the results. 124.188.210.63 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gtg
Gtg redirects here, but it doesn't even appear in content. It should be fixed I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.184.89 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GTG redirects here because it's internet slang, so where else should it belong? And no, we're not going to add it to the article since this isn't a dictionary.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everything came from the internet
This article is wrong, not everything came from the internet. IT should be renamed something else. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give any examples?--Megaman en m (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1988/1989, when I was in US naval nuclear power schools, instructor's used to hand back inscrutable exam answers with giant WTF scrawled over them. So I'm not so sure this has its origins in the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.98.71 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that some terms now commonly associated with internet/chat slang have earlier origins, including wtf, fyi, and probably more. To me, it makes sense to re-write the definition slightly to say we are talking about slang in wide use on the internet rather than slang that can be proved to have originated on the internet. betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * However, I think both of these have a common point of origin: the US military. Internet arises from DARPANET, to which migrate the standard "FUBAR" and other long-standing military social acronyms.  The larger question of linguistic hyperreductionism probably would require getting the linguistics people involved, and I'm definitely not ready to speak with any authority there.  Scott Swanson (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good point. The article needs to clarify the point that many similar abbreviations preceded internet slang - many of them used by telegraphers and amateur radio operators (tnx, ur, hr, om), others by the military (SNAFU, FUBAR), still others by linguistic mavericks like Harry Schultz in his Harry Schultz Newsletter (IMO). It would be nice to show the roots of internet slang in these and other sources. Ditkoofseppala (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

AKA should certainly go - its use predates the earliest computers by decades, used by police, etc to identify a list of aliases 132.185.240.121 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

possible bias/points of relevance
Just reading through this the article seems to cast the use of internet slang in somewhat of a poor light. Specifically I don't think very many people (except the researchers quoted) are really concerned (at all) about slang of any form suddenly coming into the business world. Maybe I'm off base here, but the article struck me as somewhat 'grandmotherly' in that this was mentioned twice. I'd be interested to see more information about the relevance of internet slang on the internet and maybe a little less about bizzare fears concerning internet slang taking over the 'real world'. I'm also curious (since there's a section for linguistic research) as to why there's no discussion of internet slang as a tool for expression to compensate in environments where body language is muted. Maybe more research needs to be done here. *Goes off to research* [unsigned]


 * Indeed. The article's non-neutral bias favors criticism.  Who are we to decide which language evolutions are acceptable and which are not? 155.101.9.41 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me add my heartfelt agreement that this article blatantly violates Wikipedia NPOV. Its bias against the use of internet abbreviations is extremely obvious throughout. Needs a complete from-the-ground-up rewrite - IMHO! Ditkoofseppala (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the people on top of me, I think that this article paints internet slang in too negative of a light to be good for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.9.223 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's better now than it was in 2009 (when they posted above); but it maybe still has some distance to go. It's not horrible when you consider that most of the views recorded are sourced to an inline citation. But I think the thing some people (like yourself perhaps) would say, reading these views, is "I don't care whether it's sourced to a reliable source; it's still grandmotherly and outdated." And I would agree with that feeling. In particular, I have not read the Laccetti and Molski 2003 reference, but it sure sounds (tentative hypothesis pending reading) like they're conflating use of slang with orthographic error. Just because those two are often coexisting in the same communication doesn't mean they're equivalent or invariably paired. I'd guess that Laccetti and Molski would concede that point if asked; but they'd counter that their point still stands—bad spelling and slang use are co-occurring in student populations in ways that may prejudice employers against the students. The thing missing here that needs to be explicitly acknowledged is that one decade's novel slang is often another (later) decade's widely used, widely accepted vocabulary. That principle has always been true in human language. So any criticism of internet slang will inevitably have a short shelf life. Anyone who may have written 15 years ago that "FYI" is a cryptic neologism and should be avoided will now find that their advice is moot and outdated—grandmotherly, as someone above said (or schoolmarmish, which is about the same in some grandmas' cases, I suppose). — ¾-10 01:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Other languages
There is internet slang in other languages. This should be mentioned to represent a world view of the subject matter. USchick (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

All caps...appropriate?
I usually see it written that way.

Thanks for any help...

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They're initialisms, so yes, it's appropriate. I've seen them written in lowercase too, but technically they should be uppercase (of course, we're applying formal written standards to forms of common usage that do not necessarily respect those standards...) &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the user and the context. This article is very prescriptive for Wikipedia, I'm concerned about NPOV. Almost all other articles concerning language describe actual use, but half of this one is a list of dubitably notable academics' and journalists' thoughts on how Internet slang is properly used. Stihdjia 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Overly Tortuous Language
This is a fascinating article, but the tone reads like an entry in some linguistics journal and appears to be aimed at a very small (dare I say L33T?) group that understands the lingo. I would like to see this written in a way more accessible to average readers. Could we possibly modify some of the "linguisticese?" This is Wikipedia, not the Journal of Linguistics. Andacar (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Improvements to better elaborate a worldwide view of Internet slang
Hello, everyone. I've been reading the Internet slang page, and I thought of some changes we could make to give the article the worldwide view it needs, and to improve on how it informs the reader.

1. The given definition now is vague and does not sufficiently describe what Internet slang is. The introductory paragraph that should define what it is consists rather of how it comes about. In addition to a concise definition, the existing information could be used to explain where Internet slang is derived from and how.

2. A new section should also help to better illustrate what entails slang. Defining the classes of slang would give a more structured approach to understanding the phenomenon. If I'm not wrong, somebody did make an entry that was relevant but it wasn't used in the page eventually.

3. The section entitled "Beyond computer-mediated communication" can also be improved on to give a less technical outlook. This section can be modified to look at the use of Internet slang outside of the Internet, and in spreading knowledge of Internet slang to newer users of the Internet. For this latter point, an example that we could use as illustration would be a South Korean textbook that informs children what common abbreviations in online communication like STFU mean. This section could also look at the social impact of Internet slang, such as the use of LOL in direct spoken conversation or short forms used in school essays.

4. The most significant area for improvement is making the article have a more globalised description, so Internet slang will be elaborated on from the perspective of less common sources such as non-English speaking countries. I think we all agree that Asia and the Middle East in particular, would be good examples of this, seeing how slang is a means of avoiding political censorship. This point has been mentioned in separate articles on Wikipedia already, but it could be mentioned here. This will also give the page more contiguity with the rest of the content. As a start, describing the 'worldwide' aspect of internet slang will consist of an overview with a few of the most frequent examples used within the text of the paragraph(s) to better inform the reader. There will be no list, as I understand the regulations do not allow for one, but a couple of them would make things easier for those those less familiar with the topic.

5. Citations should also be supplemented. Of course, this will be partly from the new content, but if possible, there could be additional sources that could be entered into the references section to give the page more credibility.

6. The last thing that I want to try to address is the concern about overly torturous language. The section on linguistic analysis needs a revamp to address this concern, so we could remove this section and instead assimilate the information into other sections. The existing contribution is more appropriate for explaining the motivations behind using Internet slang, for example.

I'm still new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if what I've suggested will be feasible to the rest of you, but I'd really like to hear from some of you before I edit the page. Thank you so much for reading this very long suggestion, and have a nice day!

--Sheefa.sameha (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sauce
I added this example because the source given mentions its use in an animated feature. thus, we have a source which is verifiable. I could expand on it here. I think the obvious solution to the "list" problem is to only list examples here that have solid sources. Of course, if some intrepid soul would just publish a book of internet slang/memes, we could cite that as a sauce (source).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Origins
I'm moving this information to the talk page for discussion: The selection process remains seemingly irregular or abstract. The process of coinage is therefore also difficult to describe. The author of Netiquette, Virginia Shea, admits that many parts of her book were made up as she went along. --


 * What selection process? Does Netiquette address Internet slang or the etiquette on the Internet? How does this pertain to the origin of the language? USchick (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Article not so very l33+
It's stated at the beginning of the article that "New dialects of slang, such as leet or Lolspeak. This is in error. LEET as a language isn't new. I was using it in my senior year of high school in 1987. But I guess it all depends on your perception of "new"? --Mari Adkins 02:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That sentence means "new" as in "additional instances that crop up over time"—not "new" as in "recently created as of the time of this writing". I was going to edit it to a rephrasing that avoids the word "new", but as I was pondering what the replacement would be, I came to the conclusion that it's sufficiently clear as-is, so I left it alone. — ¾-10 03:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What do people mean by: combinations of both
What do people mean by: combinations of both (under letter homophones)? I do not get it...Super48paul (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They mean combinations of both acronyms and abbreviations.Tvindy (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * the examples are bad (omg, rofl) k kisses 17:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Internet slang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130204011853/http://mitglied.multimania.de/gottfhanninger/redekanal.htm to http://mitglied.multimania.de/gottfhanninger/redekanal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 08 February 2016
A protected redirect, List of Internet slang phrases needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Internet slang


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Internet slang

The This is a redirect template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) The category "Lists of phrases" no longer applies, since this is a redirect, not a list. Thank you in advance! Be prosperous!  Paine  16:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Martin! There is a response to your inquiry on my talk page if you're interested.  Please acknowledge.  Assume good faith!  Paine   16:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Internet slang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140417191424/http://wvuscholar.wvu.edu:80/ to http://wvuscholar.wvu.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Internet slang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422130830/http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/internets-effect-on-language-debated to http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/internets-effect-on-language-debated
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141128120629/http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/246113/gawker-bans-internet-slang/ to http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/246113/gawker-bans-internet-slang/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420091421/http://www.lovelovechina.com/entertainment/why-thai-laugh-when-chinese-cry/ to http://www.lovelovechina.com/entertainment/why-thai-laugh-when-chinese-cry/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of list of commonly used slang
I think this is a ridiculous decision, as there is no page on Wikipedia that covers this topic. There is one page in WIKTIONARY, but it is common knowledge that the general public mostly access WIKIPEDIA, and very few use Wiktionary. If you are trying to rob people of their easily accessible knowledge, then removing the list of slang is definitely the way to go rather than "Oh, well there's a page on wiktionary (which no one uses therefore will never find) so I guess I'll just remove this list and be a good boy robbing people of educational resources." You are taking 50% of the article out and also the most informative and practically useful part, as I think that the term 'Internet Slang' is pretty self explanitory and people would rather a list of words to use than a boring list explaining internet slang. Removing this list will more than likely turn people away to other sites such as UD etcetera. The City 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't about getting more readership nor is it a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. UrbanDictionary is a great resource for that sort of information and I, for one, am more than happy for people to use it as a resource. Having it on Wikipedia, however, means that there is a lot of original research and it just gets out of hand regarding what should and shouldn't be on the list, like the older pages when there was one. -- MacAddct &#xF8FF; 1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I still disagree. Everyone would just yell at me and block me if I actually added the list of "common internet slang" Common examples are "OMG" (oh my god), "LOL" (laughing out loud), "WTF" (what the fuck?), as well as emoticons and "the middle finger." but someone needs to. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a wrong decision. A list of internet slang is more useful than a boring article explaining the phenomenon of internet slang.Dadaszehon (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly this is supposed to be gathering all knowledge. I really feel wikipedia and certain editors have put to much importance on rules and not enough on gathering knowledge LordFluffington454 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No List..... Period.
Look, this has been talked about REPEATEDLY and over and over it is added back. There should be no list, per Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:NOT) simple as that. Stealth (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually to be pedantic the one that applies more closely is WP:NOT. Though I slightly disagree; I think a short sample list of terms especially ones of significance or especially notable would be appropriate. PaleAqua (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that, but the second you have a tiny example paragraph with like 5 examples, people add more....and more.... and then we get to this last edit here. Now after I deleted it this new edit came, leave it for a while and there will be a list. It started as something that could be useful but most likely will be bad later (edit here. So does that make sense? Stealth (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but the article could use a few examples as illustration. You can always watchlist it for new changes. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well thats actually already there "r" to mena "are" "u" to mean "you" etc. it's in one of the paragraphs.... Stealth (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Looking at the examples that were deleted in the last big deletion ("LOL," etc), it seems that this article was just a bad version of the fairly good Leet article. Now, of course, this article is terrible, because it contains no information what-so-ever. Shouldn't this merge into Leet, Leet merge here, or at least this article turn into something that is actually useful, like the Leet article? &mdash Sam 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)


 * The link to Wiktionary is more than sufficient. Anything more just invites you know what.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No its not because face it not many people use it LordFluffington454 (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Page Merge into Slang
I don't understand the value of having a separate article for Internet Slang and Slang. The content is overly similar and would benefit merging. Situphobos (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree as proposer Situphobos (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is not a lot of overlap in the two articles: maybe two paragraphs in the slang article? Apart from the content, if you look at the references and external links, there is almost no overlap. We would end up with one unwieldy page, instead of two focused ones.  Francis Bond (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for exactly the same reasons as Ffbond. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Ffbond's reason. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Ffbond's reason. Dyork (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Article/Sources
Hello Wikipedians, ~I am adding more to this article and adding more sources. I wanted to change the wording the definition in order to expand upon what slang is and how internet slang is used on the internet. ~I also wanted to add in the origins how it was originally used. ~In the section "Types of Slang" some citations were needed to support the examples. I added a few, and used different examples that were supported by studies and experiments. ~I combined the sections "In pop culture" and "Around the World," because it expanded upon how internet slang is used around the world. ~I added a new section entitled "Internet Slang in Advertisement". It is used very predominately in our media, especially for ads. I am hoping more would like to expand upon the ideas.

If there are any concerns with these changes, I look forward to hearing from you, or feel free to change it. Tui16726 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing the work you are planning to do. I don't have any particular opinions about what you are suggesting- I look forward to seeing how you improve the article! - Dyork (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mthomas5, Zeyahu. Peer reviewers: Averyfergy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Freldf20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 2 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tui16726.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
— Assignment last updated by BlueWaterBottle67 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

AAVE section
I don't think the Internet slang section in its current form belongs to the article.

It should either be summarized and moved to the table directly preceding it, or removed altogether. RainyShadow (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, i moved it to the "see also" section RainyShadow (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)