Talk:LOLCat Bible Translation Project

Notability
Notability in question. A few news articles do not add up to real notability. Thoughts?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it also was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune and in the Courier Journal. Not sure what the threshold for notability. According to the lolcat discussion page it now meets it for notability due to the nature of the content (lolcats being a meme). Just what I've heard. Zotnix (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to "Lolcat r full of win", The Courier-Journal and "The Gospel according to kitty", Chicago Tribune r brokun. No cheezburger for yu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.42.245 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck.
I'm surprised this hasn't been deleted by an admin yet. Keep up the good work guys. For as long as it'll last. ;_; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.191.254 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

By just the basis that lolcatbible is being written using mediawiki and its a internet collaboration project, this page should definitely stay. Jonverve (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actual significance of project
Anyone who's interested, check the recent changes log for this project []. In 30 days (from the date I checked) there have been 17 contributions (including minor) the the main body of the project, with no users editing on more than one occasion. The most activity has come from deletions and blocking of vandals. ''I do not believe this project satisfies notability requirements, as, though it has admittedly been referenced in news sources, they are not covering it because it is notable—in fact, just the opposite. These news sources are printing the story simply because this is in fact so ridiculous and inherently unnotable that it makes a good story.'' The majority of the news sources actually are about LOLCats or introduce the basic concept first, and then move on to mention the Bible (only one with significant coverage); further suggesting a merge of this article with LOLCats. If there are 100 articles on subject A and B, 50 articles on A alone, and 0 on B alone, it is pretty strong evidence that  A and B should be an article on Wikipedia   A should be an article with a subsection B. Please see Notability (web) (WP:N alone is insufficient) - Disallowed as source material is "trivial coverage [including] a brief summary of the nature of the [website's] content."


 * The Sources


 * (1) The first source, cited as to look like some significant newspaper entry, is actually [] an approximately 150 word online blog entry (and that includes two quotes) which is basically just a brief mention that the project exists.
 * (2) The second source, while significantly longer, begins: "Still, sometimes the best features of the Web are the most banal[....] Perhaps no other online project of the moment is greater testament to this than the Lolcat Bible Translation Project." With a contributor stating: "The better translators incorporate as many inside jokes from across the lolcat cultural sphere as they can."  This entry further shows how the project is basically a pet project of fans (more concerned with "inside jokes" than anything) and only stands as a news story on account of its ridiculousness, not its notability.  Banal is used in this context to basically mean the antithesis of notability. []
 * (3) By Gordon Day, of Craig County High School. Includes one sentence mentioning a project exists ("[...] a translation of the Holy Bible into the language of Lolcat is  in the works").  The article is actually about kitty pidgin. []
 * (4) The News Journal article is not in reference to the project, it just supports the fact that Ben Huh popularized LOLCats (though it does make this article look more nicely referenced).


 * There are a couple more news sources listed on the actual LOLCat Bible Translation Project website. Three are broken links.  Two are mentioned above, leaving one:


 * (5) The Chicago Tribune article has to introduce what LOLCat is (and kitty pidgin) in addition to the LOLCat Bible (further supporting the fact that the two topics should be merged--they don't stand well apart). The meatiest statement the article makes (other than basic explanation of the "language," and various translations) is "Yes, either you think all this is funny … or you don’t. The effort  the Bible into a language full of grammatical errors, hacker acronyms and Internet lingo may appear distasteful [...] It’s crowded with references to lolcats pictures and to ambiguous Internet humor,and these references can only be understood by people who spend too much time on the Web."  Once again.  Unnotable, but comic relief: good fodder for a newspaper article.

As per WP:NOT "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This page only details the contents of the page ("nature" and "appearance"), and does not "detail" it's "achievements, impact, or historical significance," nor do any of the news sources—obvious testament to the fact that it is a news story only for human interest (due to it's bizarre nature), rather than for actual notability. It actually does achieve a modicum of notability purely for the fact that it is widely referenced in such a way; but, only enough to warrant a subsection in the LOLCats article (i.e., merging, see LOLCat Bible Translation Project AfD). Where I live we have a news show dedicated to these sorts of things: [That News Show]; it covers bizarre things that have happened around the world, many newspapers have columns covering similar bizarre material—not actually independently notable on an encyclopedic/world scale, but interesting for people to read. Things like this: [Chris Parks, Seattle Military Deserter] are covered far and wide (much farer and wider than the LOLCats project) by reputable, referenceable sources, because they are amusing to read and an interesting story, but nevertheless they aren't notable in an encyclopedic sense. Now if Chris Parks had an article, it would definitely be added to it, not made into a new one. All Wikipolicies and their implications must be taken into account when deciding on the inclusion of an article, not just WP:N. Once, a few days ago there was an event about a Romanian mayor which actually strongly passes notability requirements, and wasn't only reported because it was trivial, see [Romanian Mayor's Nazi Uniform]. Regardless of even the nontrivial event and its complicated aftermath, it gets added as a section to his article Radu Ştefan Mazăre, not its own article, due to other wikipolices.
 * Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS Just a note, the Alexa 7 day average page rank is 327,977th, moderate, but definitely not significant.

Qur'an adaptation?
I see this joked about all over the place, but it seems to have never happened. I think it was just joked about so much that it was incorrectly asserted that it had happened. I even found a recent Islamic blog posting from someone who would seem to have known, and they say such a thing doesn't actually exist. I know the statement of a "Ben" saying the translation exists is sourced, but I think we need some actual evidence (i.e., website, print reference, etc.). Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Publishing?
Apparently, the LOLCat bible is set to be published in January 2010. I see no mention of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.93.19 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So provide the source and add it? Richard001 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this fundamental page neccesary.
I am not being old-maidish, but the lolcat bible translation project does not seem noteworthy, because a large part of the file "cache" that google brings up when typing this in, is basically spam. We don't need a webpage on everything. I may send a copypasta of this page to an editor friend of mine for deletion within one working week. If there are any complaints please cast them here now.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It does have external references, and is therefore notable per WP:N. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion (PROD)
This is a really poor page, with really poor sources and a really poor subject. I do not see any hope for this page. I can only think that the people behind the "LOLcat Bible Translation Project" set up this page so as they could make more sales. This is, of course, completely against WP:NOT. Thank you.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support deletion, for the reasons indicated above by several editors. Esoglou (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. I heard about this product through other sources. Here is where I come to get the information I want about it. Not sure what universe the would-be deleters want to live in, but the more information we can expect to find here, the better it serves its purpose. Idiots who comb Wikipedia specifically for articles to delete do the rest of us a serious disservice. Challenges on notability grounds are all too often made by people who are not qualified to make a judgment. Koro Neil (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. This project is significant as an entertainment to a fairly large number of people, almost all of them web users of course. And now that it's being published in book form, there's all the more reason for describing its origins. Thnidu (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support deletion as per discussion above. It's tat. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why all the grief?
It seems to me there are alot of articles that are worse in their makeup, and less important on wikipedia, and yet they don't get this kinda grief. Is it just religious folks getting upset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.32.16 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. 79.101.74.215 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's people upset that their stupid internet in-joke articles get deleted while this stupid internet in-joke article inexplicably remains. 71.254.119.3 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a parody?
In the first sentence of the article, the LOLCat Bible is called a "parody". I would argue that it is a genuine translation or a satire translation, rather than a parody. Many of the 'translators' (most, actually) have earnestly adapted the text into LOLSpeak. LOLSpeak has now rules of grammar, and syntax, along with spelling protocols for conversion of English into the language of kittehz. These are referenced on the sidebar of the main page of the site.98.167.162.96 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Listing non-religions such as "none" in the religion entries of infoboxes:
There have been several RfCs on whether to list non-religions such as "none" in the religion entries (religion, denomination, religious affilliaton, etc.) of infoboxes:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.


 * 17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.


 * 11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Library of Congress
https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0010498/ --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wild. I didn't know the LoC was running their own instance of the Internet Archive software.  Do you think the webarchives I just added in place of the dead www.lolcatbible.com should be changed to from the Wayback Machine version to the Library of Congress version?  --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)