Jump to content

Talk:LOL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuzzyhair2 (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 8 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconInternet culture B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Please delete the article.

Don't delete it (It is a part of modern culture as much as many other things are), but please, the entire first section of the article is garbage. At least create a new section about all of these "studies" or better yet, delete them and replace it with a history of the word. Seriously, though, the first section has to go. 98.169.249.232 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as the acronym 'LOL' is in global use, it belongs more on Urban Dictionary than a fully-featured encyclopedia. Please delete the article or at least get somebody else to do it as it is quite pathetic with details. They're not wrong, just a little bit inaccurate and the article is very unprofessional. It's already been nominated for deletion once; keep Wikipedia to the informal articles, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzTeTT (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't an acronym encyclopedic?--Megaman en m (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully-featured minus "LOL"? How is the article "quite pathetic with the details"? Did you request the deletion just for teh lullz? --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(LOL also means Lots Of Love) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.44.237 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the previous discussion resulted in Speedy Keep. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"LOL is a common element of Internet slang used historically on Usenet". Do we really need to use the word USENET? --Fuzzyhair2 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFFLES

ROFFLES redirects here, but the article doesn't mention it once. Can't figure out what the extra letters mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.207.140 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Do we even need this article? Shaunsomeone (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet lingo is immature, and stupid. It's hardly worthy of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.40.115 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article falls completely within the requirements of Wikipedia articles per Wikipedia standards. It, however, does require work to become a more complete and constructive encyclopedic entry. As noted above all previous attempts to have this article deleted have resulted in a "speedy keep" verdict. It may be prudent to discuss a merge of this article into common internet lingo if there is enough of objection to LOL being a separate article, but this move would have to be discussed at length and would not be an overnight outcome. Chris4682 January 1, 2009 6:59PM

Could someone please delete the line "Teenagers now sometimes use them in spoken communication as well as in written, with ROFL (pronounced /ˈroʊfəl/ or /ˈrɒfəl/) and LOL (pronounced /ˈloʊl/, /ˈlɒl/, or /ˌɛloʊˈɛl/), for example"? I am a teenager and am highly offended by this line. No one I know uses lol in spoken communication and few use it in text messaging or IM.It is also used various times when there is an awkward situation on hand.

But it's teenagers who use this slang more often than older generations. It's from a neutralz point of viewzez. Kausill (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I know plently of people who use it, both spoken and written. Depends on the people, I guess.

98.169.249.232 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How old is this page?

Could somebody please unlock this page for renovation? I mean... The first sentence:

'LOL (also written with some or all letters lowercase, most commonly as lol or LoL)'

I've never seen anybody say LoL. Or BWL for that matter (also mentioned). This page is horribly, tragically outdated. Please let the Wikipedia community fix this! 124.177.124.250 (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record im 15 and i say it all the time because im pro and epic while the rest of you are all n00bs and gyro's. Thankyou and loool, lol rofl xD zomg roflctoper soi soi soi

Noot92 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Some of the things written on the 'lol' page are WRONG. Example: ROTFL- Rolling on the floor laughing. This is meant to be ROFL as the 'T' is not written. This is false information that we are not allowed to edit.[reply]

Ridiculous.

  • Again, please read and familiarize yourself with our verifiability policy. Wikipedia is not written based upon claims from people with pseudonyms such as "Noot92". It is written based upon published sources written by people such as Jiuan Heng, Guy L. Steele, Robin Williams, Steve Cummings, Tim Shortis, and Eric S. Raymond. In the event of a conflict between an assertion backed up by multiple published sources written by identifiable people who have expertise in the field and reputations for fact checking and accuracy to defend, and an assertion from some unidentifiable person calling xyrself "Noot92" with nothing at all to back it up, Wikipedia, by clear policy, goes with what the sources say. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please unlock this page. This is so old and every single internet acronym redirects here. Even ROFLCOPTER (soi soi soi) even when that is not mentioned in the article and is completely seperate from LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.118.42 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISHP. This article is bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbobboblol (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im 15 and i use lol all the friggin time in basic conversation. Just ask ali scott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.177.46 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL NOT ROFTL

seriously it's ROFL meaning roll on floor laughing, people think it is roftl because they think it is roll on THE floor laughing. not ROFTL (rolling on the floor laughing) that's just plain wrong.

ROFL you can't get it right all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speed assasin (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find some published source that talks about ROFL, Wikipedia can use material from encyclopedia-quality sources but not material from our own experience or impressions. I agree that ROTFL is uncommon/non-existent in the chat circles I know about online. But I just did a Google news search -- ROTFL and ROFL are still about equally common in currently published media. betsythedevine (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ROFL, and why doesn't ROFL have its own entry. As for source, go to any gaming server and ask.... ROFTL is WRONG! Tha dictionary --Rootbeerjunky (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any real media writer is reading these pages, why not write an article on the ROFL wars? (See similar comments by different people also on the talk page for Internet slang.) Then we could have what Wikipedia considers a verifiable source for the shades of nuance and use in different communities of ROTF (oldest), ROTFL (which seems to have a monopoly in scholarly articles on the subject), and ROFL, which many enthusiasts say here is now the standard. Google News searches turn up current usage of both ROTFL and ROFL. betsythedevine (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All hail Google. No siriously, being a dedicated gamer ROTFL is like ancient, old and for n00bies. Its ROFL, but then again I do agree it could be based on online community what abbreviation they use. I do not think Wikipedia could handle Leet or gaming slang/terminology. You are kidding about scholarly articles about ROFL are you???--Rootbeerjunky (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are tons of scholarly papers written in the field of linguistics, and some at least talk about internet slang. For example, this article, which has ROTFL rather than ROFL. [1] betsythedevine (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically, it is fairly common for abbreviations to exclude the letter 'T' when it stands for 'the'. Similarly, 'A' is often not put into abbreviations when an 'and' exists in the sentence. Also, google search shows some 16 million more results for "ROFL" than "ROTFL", implying that the former is now the common standard. Greg (t • c) 11:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i can assure you that ROFL is more commonly used IN GAMING AND NORMAL SPEECH. in the media, it may, be just as common to come across ROTFL as ROFL but this is NOT true as such in gaming (where abbreviations such as this are most common.) you may also notice that, in many spell checks, "ROFL" doesn't get marked as an incorrect spelling where as "ROTFL" DOES!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.152.185 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, it's not ROFTL (rollin on floor the laughing). LOL. Kausill (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol

Well im an internet gamer and i use lol all of the time. There are many differant things you can use as slang and people often use slang in there online games. LOL and lol usally have very differant meanings. When people say LOL it's usally ment to mean its more funny than just saying lol. Useing caps can be used as a way of shouting e.g. you fool or in caps YOU FOOL. Other slang used online is rofl, lmao, lmfao, wtf, gf (get F@@@), gf (girl friend), gf (good friend),brb (be right back), bbl (be back later, afk and stfu. Faces can also be used as slang :)  :( -.- <('.'<).

Get FATATAT? LOL Kausill 06:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is? This article is only about the abbreviation LOL.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're right, you need to stop speaking like a retard and type properly or no one will listen to you. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SO BASICALLY, LOL=LAUGH OUT LOUD :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.165.250 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That made me LOL, ROFL, LMFAO, LMAO, Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.32.56 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please define "CMC-style abbreviations"!

The section "Spread from written to spoken communication" refers to a study in which "Out of 2,185 transmissions, there were 90 initialisms in total, only 31 CMC-style abbreviations, and 49 emoticons." I can't find any definition in Wikipedia or anywhere else (including the referenced source for that study) of "CMC-style abbreviations." What are they? Jim10701 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMC is "computer-mediated communication." I agree, it's a flaw in the article if that's not clear. betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with the article on Internet slang

The two sections "Analysis" and "Spread from written to spoken communication" contain a lot of information that is relevant to Internet slang in general, not just to "lol." I copied that information to Internet slang. I think it would also be a good idea to remove from this article material that relates only peripherally to "lol." Any discussion from others, pro or con? betsythedevine (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kek/bur reference

Heph8 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC) kek: Cross-faction rendering of lol in the MMORPG World of Warcraft. Though most words are not translated directly across factions, lol is always faithfully rendered as "kek". When a member of the Horde says the word lol, nearby members of the Alliance see the word as "kek". Kek is derived from the Korean ㅋㅋㅋ, or kekeke, which is used to express laughter.[citation needed][reply]

http://projectazeroth.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/LanguageOrcish is a website devoted to translating the various tongues used in WoW. Bur is commonly heard by horde when alliance say lol, and kek is what alliance hear when horde say lol.

LMAO and LMFAO

Personally, I feel that Wikipedia should not be so mercilessly abused by internet gamers, who purposely try to embbed profanities into good articles. Or not very good articles. Anyway, we all know that LMFAO has a vulgarity, which is the F, which is F***. We all know that this is very bad, especially for innocent children who go browsing wikipedia, and because their friend said lol, they search what it means. LMAO is safer, and you should change it to LMAO. I'll change it.

Wikipedia isn't censored for the protection of children. :P Kausill 06:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hopefully nobody would change it to LAMO.

Please don't second-guess the motivations of other editors. It is entirely possible that the paragraph contains "LMFAO" because the source being cited contained that spelling and/or because that is the term kids use to disguise their reference not only to its F-word but also to its A-word. betsythedevine (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is NOT censored so profanity is allowed if it improves the article.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this page after googling for a definition of lmfao. lmfao redirects here, so it really should be mentioned somewhere.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just in case someone still wanna know, LMAO means "Laughing My Ass Off", and LMFAO means "Laughing My Fucking Ass Off"--TiagoTiago (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL means "Rolling On The Floor Laughing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.154.179 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, no one uses ROTFL, it's just ROFL. The T is not included. This article is serious bullshit. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lolz?

On the page it says that lolz can sometimes be used instead of lol. I've always heard that that it means "laugh out loud zealously". Can anyone confirm/deny whether this is true and find citation of it? earle117 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's rubbish. Lolz is the plural of LOL, as in "I did it for the lulz" which is it appropriate spelling. It's actually not an acronym. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it also sais that lolz is used as "mockery" of the word lol, stupid and it belongs on urbain dictionary, it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.228.175 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl vandalism?

I think Wikipedia has been spammed with rofls on the LOL page. Because of semi protection, it's uneditable for me. Can anyone change it? --82.13.216.194 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to sign up. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Article

LOL is now a common acronym. But for how long, and what is there to say about it? At least explain the origin of LOL, why it became popular, and how popular it is. The article oversteps its bounds and goes offtopic from LOL to acronym. Given its actual content, the "Analysis" section would be more appropriately labeled "Criticism" or "Controversy". The article is also outdated. Erudecorp ? * 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ya, we used lol, wtf, wth, and many other acronyms like this when we were in grade school, long before the internet became widespread (c. 1982-84) its bizzare that younger people assume that they made them up. oh well, im too lazy to research this:) 96.238.247.130 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLCOPTER

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again)

ROFLCOPTER redirects here but is never mentioned in the article— What's with that? ROFLCOPTER has its own little history in (if I remember correctly) World of Warcaft long after the creation of LOL, ROFL, ROFLMAO, or other any varient of such. ROFLCOPTER is also unique in that it not actually an acronym, but rather a base word, "copter" (presumebly from the word "helicopter"), mixed with the acronym prefix, "ROFL" ("Rolling On [The] Floor Laughing"), creating a word-acronym mix that (presumebly for asthetic purposes or for the convenience of not having to switch between capital letters and lower-case letters) is irregularly partially capitalized. Also note that "COPTER" does not stand for anything, as nothing would make sense, and because it is obviously part of the word "helicopter". As a theory of its origin or meaning, I think it may be a play on the common, though incorrect, pronounceation of "helicopter" as something along the lines of "hellocopter". Not sure where to go from there though. 70.184.239.162 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

soi soi soi soi... maybe? Kausill (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's only used in WoW, does it belong here? --Thnidu (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only in WoW, it's become more popular. Kausill (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFTL?

I don't think anyone has used ROFTL for a long time. It is a bad example in the first paragraph of the article, and should be replaced with ROFL immediately due to the fact that people actually use the term ROFL. Thanks guys, and sorry that I am too lazy to log into my account and change it myself, but then I would start fixing other articles. You know how that goes. --207.118.214.56 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is parochial. Maybe no one in your circle has used it for a long time, but it's still around. And BTW, it's ROTFL, not ROFTL "Rolling On Floor The Laughing". --Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

mdr?

I don't think anybody actually use "mdr" to replace LOL in French language. I am a French speaking Quebecer and as I can see, everybody around here use LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.147.93 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We sort of do use it but not to replace "lol", you're right. But since it's not so common anymore it has a stronger value. I don't think the article is wrong though when it says it's the french version. Skwiz (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Redirection

Maybe kik should have a disambiguation page, since it also redirects to bass drum. Kik is a usual typo among fast typers. Kausill (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've solved the problem. Type KIK to see. Kausill (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corruptions of "Lol"

in the sub-article "Corruptions of "Lol"" theres a part that says lqtm is widely used, and i've been using the internet thru games for 4 years and have never herd this term, can anyone give a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.37.202 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Variants" would be better than "Corruptions". --Thnidu (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about "lulz: a corruption of L O L which stands or laugh out loud" quote in the lulz section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.13.138 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL vs. ROTFL

Sorry to bring this topic up again, but a Google search gets 14,600,000 hits for ROFL & 3,770,000 hits for ROTFL. The most recent citation that mentions "ROTFL" is from 2001, and the other two citations are from 1996 & 1993, eons ago in terms of the internet. The most recent citation (from 2003) does not even mention "ROTFL" at all, but mentions "ROFL" once. I feel this is enough justification for changing the article. chad. (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that ROFL is now much more common. Our agreement constitutes WP:OR unless somebody finds a reliable source saying the same thing. Also, when the article is citing a reliable source that used "ROTFL," it is not accurate to change material based on that source to replace "ROTFL" with "ROFL." betsythedevine (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't. Find and cite a reliable source that documents this. How many more times does this have to be said? Google Web page hit counts are meaningless (as linguists who have tried to use them will tell you). Cite a source. Find someone with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy who has actually documented what you claim to be true. Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is clearly a case where Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules applies. Unless anybody is seriously positing that ROTFL is prevalent and ROFL is uncommon by comparison. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are thinking incorrectly. IAR is not a get-out-of-content-policy-free card, as Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means clearly explains. Stop looking for loopholes and cite a source. We've made the effort to raise this article from the terrible depths that it once was in by working on making it adhere to our verifiability and no original research policies, in part by writing it based upon what sources we can find actually say. Any reversal of that is not an improvement, but a step backwards and counter to the project's goals. So find a reliable source that documents the fact that you assert. Others have put in the effort to find sources with the rest of the article. Anyone wanting this particular content in the article is not exempt from putting in the same effort and writing properly. It says below the every edit box that you see that encyclopaedic content must be verifiable. That is not a warning without teeth. This is verifiability in action. You are actually being held, by other people around you, to the project's standards for content. Find and cite a reliable source that documents what you claim to be true. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest this whole discussion is a bit ridiculous. Either variation can be found on a butt ton of web pages, why not just include both? (i.e. say "ROTFL (often shortened to ROFL)") I think it is in the spirit of ignore all rules (or maybe in this case, make a few new ones up) that at some point a whole bunch of independent, quasi-reliable sources constitutes a single fully reliable source. This whole argument is over ONE LETTER! Can we please use this page for more constructive discussions rather than arguing over the letter T? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only ridiculous thing here is that although sources have been requested here for at least eight months, no-one wanting this content has put in the effort to find and cite a single one, but instead we have the same request repeated, without sources to back it up, again and again, as if the request for sources to back up the claim will be any different to the last time. Proper article writing requires verifiability, and this is verifiability in action. The Wikipedia editor community as a whole, and individually, requires that content be backed up by sources. You are being challenged to show a source to back up your claim, in the normal way that happens every day at Wikipedia. Repeating the claim does not rise to that challenge. Trying to squirm out of fundamental project policy does not rise to the challenge. Finding and citing a reliable source does. Rise to the challenge and do so. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not trying squirm out anything. I am trying to present a compromise after watching months of rather pointless bickering. The reason no one has found a single scholarly source is that IT'S HARD and it's not for lack of effort. I was hoping that citing several less-than-scholarly sources would be enough to satisfy everyone. I know the policy, and all I was asking is that editors consider this as a means of moving the discussion forward. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a compromise suggestion: somebody find one linguistics or otherwise scholarly paper that talks about "ROFL" or (even more common now) "rofl". We will use that source as a reference in the summary and move the 4 or 5 earlier scholarly papers talking about "ROTFL" into external links? If we are citing a bunch of scholarly papers that talked about pteranodons, we can't write our article as if they talked about ducks just because pteranodons have evolved into ducks, IMO. betsythedevine (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does a Washington Post article that has been cited in the The British journal of developmental psychology[2] count as a reliable source?

    Helderman, R. S. (2003, 20 May). Click by Click, Teens Polish Writing; Instant Messaging Teaches More Than TTYL and ROFL. The Washington Post, p. B.01.

    Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also:

    Childress (2006). "Using massively multiplayer online roleplaying games for online learning". Distance Education. 27 (2): 187–196. doi:10.1080/01587910600789522. Other than the occasional use of emoticons such as ;) (wink) or other generally accepted instant messaging abbreviations such as <LOL> (laughing out loud) or <ROFL> (rolling on the floor laughing), there is little, if any visual feedback that alerts the students to the tenor of the discussion {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

    Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those seems to be available freely over the internet, but I have added a reference to one that is. I hope this addition will resolve this controversy. betsythedevine (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is another laughing abbreviation that was not metioned, it is BOAL this means "buss out a laugh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.11.82 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) lol also means lots of love[reply]

Lots Of Laughs

Isn't Lots Of Laughs or Lots of Laughter also something that LOL stands for? The article doesnt even mention them. Apoyon (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Lol (disambiguation), which is linked at the top of the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it's not. And even if it was, shouldn't it also be mentioned in this article? Apoyon (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lulz"

Is it derived from the 4chan community? I thought Encyclopedia Dramatica started it before 4chan did.--Deitrohuat (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable source?--Megaman en m (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ED says it was coined by a LiveJournal user, "Jameth". How is it known that it is derived from the 4chan community, where does it say that?--Deitrohuat (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this article LOL mentions 4chan in the context of a NYT article that talked about the use of "lulz" in the 4chan community. I am removing the claim that it originated there unless somebody provides a reliable source for that claim. betsythedevine (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol is used mostly by young adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.191.225 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lulz is laughter at others expense, and originally it was coined by a Live Journal user, "Jameth" and 4chan started using it. On note of what someone said, Encyclopedia Dramatica was around after 4chan from what I understand DrSinn (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lulz, Schadenfreude, and other notes.

First off, is lulz a form of schadenfreude? The article on schadenfreude says it is "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others." That makes seem like lulz is schadenfreude is too me. I understand that this conclusion may constitute synthesis but, with a source, wouldn't including schadenfreude in the definition for lulz be helpful to readers trying understanding the term?

On another note, considering the people who use it call lulz a "corruption of lol" wouldn't it also be prudent to include that in the definition as well. Sources for that are easy to find (see this Google Scholar search) so, as long it's worded properly, there shouldn't be any issue with neutral point of view and, once again, would be helpful to readers. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LQTM isn't mentioned

LQTM isn't mentioned, but redirects here. Why redirect here if it isn't mentioned? LtDonny (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWL

Does anyone actually use this acronym? Google search turns up Blackwing Lair, apparently something from WoW. I personally have never heard it used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimo1989 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO

LMAO means "laugh my ass off" or "laughing my ass off. Now stop asking you internet noobs. D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.246.37 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Luck?

Should 'LOL: Lots of Luck' be on the list of variants? 'LOL' usually expresses laughter and so do the other variants listed, the 'lots of luck' variant expresses something else. EDIT: Removed. EagleYS (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

löl?

adding "löl", an german variation of lol ? --Sims1024 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew LOLs

As a Hebrew speaking Israeli who surfs the internet on a daily basis I've never witnessed the use of "ההה" as the equivalent of lol. "חחח", on the other hand, is indeed very popular. As for the use of "לול", I have an explanation of why it isn't common. "לול" can be read as "lol", but also as "lul". "Lul" in Hebrew means "chicken coop". This is because the "u" and "o" vowels in Hebrew can both be written with the same letter. I hope my explanation is good enough... :)

Slightly contradictory?

Seriously almost nobody will notice, but this is slightly inaccurate/contradictory in my opinion:

"It is one of many initialisms for expressing..."

"/ˈloʊl/, /ˈlɒl/, or /ˌɛloʊˈɛl/"

Initialisms are solely pronounced letter-by-letter, and therefore, "LOL" which can be pronounced letter-by-letter but is also pronounced commonly as a whole, is more accurately defined to be an acronym.

If you find that I am wrong about this case, then kindly fix the then contradictory Wiktionary definition(s) for acronym and/or initialism.

74.109.136.32 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to you for noticing! Thanks! Kausill (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LOL&oldid=318750459"