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 XreDuex (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 12 November 2007 (→QLTM Section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconInternet culture
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

LOL can also mean lots of love!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.206.48 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LULZ IS GHEY!!!!!!!!!!!111111111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.230.241 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.162.24 (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also variations, such as lolz or lols.

just as capitalisation of other words (via their use as emphasis or emphases) has become widely recognised as shouting. In the same way as scuba, laser, taser, and probably a few others, the widespread use of the acronym in its capacity as a word with meaning in these areas has turned this into what is essentially a word. --Firien 13:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Lol means also lots of laughs, other variations are lmfao which means laugh my fucking ass off.

What is ballsack?' and lols? Help plz --clinton denton fentonbenton
  • This article is a chaos. There is no point in listing 200 different random ways to write Lol, and the actual interesting ones with a history, such as Roflcopter, are given without explanation. (Self edit: I was wrong on the history of Roflcopter. I'll leave it to the professionals. To err is human, to correct it is a Wikipedia privilege!) 157.193.108.42 10:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lulz

"lulz" redirect here, but it is not listed in the article. I am mentioning this because it seems to me that the term "lulz" is used in a slightly different way than the other variations. It typically means "laughs" or "comedy" as opposed to the actual act of laughing or finding something amusing. Examples include "something happened, lulz ensued," "I did it for the lulz," etc. This is in heavy use by ED and other trolling communities, especially, and was just added as a wordfilter on 4chan for the word "desu." However, sometimes even if you get the "LOL" response, it doesn't always mean your conversational partner is laughing. Sometimes they don't give a toss about what you said and say LOL as an easy reply.

Lulz is a corruption of L O L. L O L O L O L.

No, LULZ is a corruption of LOL which stands for Laugh Out Loud.--68.9.193.246 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed when I read "a corruption of LOL" in this article. The phrase was first used in the Fox News "report" on Anonymous, and it became an instant meme on 4chan. To see the phrase used in Wikipedia is something of a joke, really. --M.W. 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I mean that sentence of the article is obviously trolled.--68.9.193.246 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, I hope that small edit doesn't cause any problems. --M.W. 07:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen "lolz" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.130.8 (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to due with lulz, lulz is not like laughing, it's a state of mind and lifestyle /b/rothers.Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.193.246 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A corruption of lol.83.14.49.59 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. Moar liek upgrade, amirite. Octane [improve me] 08.11.07 2307 (UTC)

Lollerskates Redirect!

Why is this, i mean, it meas the same thing but, there should at least be a section becasue I spent a while trying to figure out WTH lollerskates meant!

Wickedxjade 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I've tried to clean up this article a bit, mainly deleting the information that just seemed like crap. Unless there's something sigificant about the Danish variations I don't think they're necessary at all. --Cammoore 03:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mergicles

So why are we against merging the major mutations of LOL here exactly? --Badlydrawnjeff 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you need to keep them. If they have different meanings, you need to list them all (as in a standard dictionary) so you can clear up any confusion.

Variants

I just counted 55 items on the list of variants. Are all these really in wide usage? Joyous (talk) 21:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

There are so many infinite variants of lol that spring up every day. ROFL, LMAO, LMFAO, etc. There is no way to post them all and the majority of these should not be posted at all. Dachshund2k3 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl?

Why does rofl redirect to this page? Rofl and lol are entirely different acronyms.

  • Rofl is covered in the content of the article, and a diagram of a Roflcopter graces the page as well. They are, indeed different acronyms (as in, different letters), but rofl is commonly considered a variant of lol. Essentially, 'lol' is the top level expression of laughter as expressed through online acronyms. 'ROFL' is a second level derivation, in the sense that its meaning encompasses the concept of not only 'laughing out loud', but actually doing so while 'rolling on the floor'. In essence, LOL is the basic grammatic foundation for a family of expressions that includes 'ROFL'. Hope this helps, please excuse me while I go shoot myself. - Chairboy 22:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of acronyms. It is an encyclopaedia of persons/places/concepts/events/things. The concept underlying all of these acronyms is the same. If you want a dictionary of acronyms, where every (attested) acronym is given an individual entry, Wiktionary is over there. Uncle G 14:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both Rofl and roflcopter redirects here yet the article makes no mention of them. Reading the talk page, it seems the notes have been removed, and, if that's the case, I believe they should be reintroduced. Someone will have to do that, or the protection removed. --210.3.39.32 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing this to an article on internet acronyms and having sections for both lol and rofl? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthesmiley (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree I think that ROFL and the ROFLCOPTER should have the own page entirely.

Me to i believe ti should have its OWN page.

Removed this bit

"Because of LOL's notoriety, Internet users began saying it as a monosyllabic word in itself, instead of pronouncing the letters individually (el oh el), which many users found tedious in their accidental exclamations of Internet slang in their everyday lives." I've never heard lol spoken as a monosyllable. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>.> For what it's worth, my brother and I use it. --Jen Moakler 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard it a lot in colloquial language, at least here in Finland. I have heard it being used in English, too, so I suppose it would be reasonable to say it has entered the everyday language. - Quirk 19:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in shock by your readiness to remove this section just because you've "never heard lol spoken as a monosyllable". What else have you removed from Wikipedia for the sole reason that you haven't witnessed what was written about in person?

monosyllabic would be "lawl" or "loll", right? I've heard both of these in person, although they were used mockingly.--67.170.36.203 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use this on a daily basis in real life. -Iopq 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use this on a daily basis as well. 83.233.58.44 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "lol" while reading this article, as I often do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.190.57.23 (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have heard my friends of mine say 'lol', either via voice-communication programs such as Teamspeak, or in real life.--81.139.46.92 10:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that the usage of variations such as "lollerskate" and "lollercoaster" have been used, then ask yourself how they came to be if lol's common pronunciation was trisyllabic

History

I would be interested in finding out more on the history of the acronym, especially about the allegation that it was coined in 1973. By whom? Where? What's the deal with the dutch word? - Quirk 19:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about its founding, but I do know that it was very popular and widely used on the old BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems), which were a sort of precursor to the Internet as we know it today. I'm not sure how to source this; it's just what I remember, so it'd be original research. magicOgre 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would like to know where this word actually came from and why it was adopted on the internet. 69.251.216.203 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember it on the BBSs in the 80s and 90s but there it meant Lots of Luck, meaning of course that the outcome was not very likely. This seams different from how it is used today (some kind of maniacle laughter), and is a cause of confussion for us old timers.

"Translations"

Do people really find the "translations" presented valid? I'm Portuguese, and LOL is actually used as it is, and I get the feeling this pretty much functions the same way elsewhere, and regardless, "hahaha", "jajaja", "huahuahuahua" and so on aren't translations at all, in that they're entirely different ways of suggesting laughter: they're equivalent to the acronym LOL; they don't have the same meaning, and as such, to dub them as "translations" is incorrect. They could only be considered "translations" (which is a strange term as it is, them being onomatopeias [sorry if I got the english spelling of this word wrong]) if we were talking about English usage of "hahaha" (as representative of the speaker's laughter) in the first place. Should this be changed to "is equivalent to..." and so on (which doesn't really seem significant, even by trivia standards), or simply removed? If there are no responses, I'll go for the second myself. Zeppocity 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second. The statement that "lal" or lawl" would be a German translation makes no sense at all; mostly because there is no such thing as a gerund in German. Even if one tried to find an expression in the sense of "laughing out loudly" in German, I couldn't think of any that would be abreviated like that. I'm in favour of removing this statement/section. Lx0 12:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing that needs to be added/edited is that in Hebrew the word is not "lol" its lul (yes, it's strange but its true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.125.86 (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging ILE

This is a truly pointless exchange. The question for Wikipedia is not, "has anyone ever done this," but, "is any discussion of this topic encyclopedic." By that metric, unless someone wants to produce some peer reviewed work that shows that there's an interesting phenomenon here, we should drop it. Meanwhile, the article at ILE was utter noise. It has been replaced with a disambig for the various useful terms which ILE referrs to. There is no common usage that would link ILE to LOL (Internet slang), though. -Harmil 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be removed youre right.

Puns (ROFLBURGERS)

I'd like to propose that as one metric, we keep any entries in the puns section with 1,000+ Google hits. This is not a perfect metric, but as a baseline, I think it will work well (until Google increases their page coverage, which they've said they are going to do....) -Harmil 11:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1,000 isn't very much for a supposed internet phenomenon. How about 10,000, which would keep the other three candidates? — Phil Welch 16:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I ever used the term "Internet phenomenon". I was merely suggesting that my research indicates that the term is used widely enough to be considered a notable play on ROFL. If you feel so strongly about the word, then I suppose we can let your edit be, and revist the issue in 6 months or so. -Harmil 02:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "notable internet slang" is going to have a much higher bar for Google testing than regular slang due to the systematic biases of Google. I think 10,000 is the right order of magnitude—100,000 would exclude LOLLERSKATES and ROFLCOPTER, which a lot of people seem to want to keep for some reason. — Phil Welch 02:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Google hits to see whether a word is attested is what Wiktionary does, and does well. I suggest that rather than doing the work that Wiktionary editors are already doing, and can thus do for us, we don't use any form of Google Test, but that we ruthlessly excise any words that do not have a Wiktionary entry (i.e. words must be in Wiktionary first, and thus have satisfied its attestation criteria, before they are listed here). I also suggest that we aren't in the business of creating a dictionary of Internet slang words to express laughter. Wiktionary is already doing that, and there's no need for us to duplicate what can be done at Wiktionary with a simple category. (Wiktionary is supposed to be Wikipedia's lexical companion, after all. We should use it.) We should be writing an article on the subject of this slang phenomenon. The primary focus of this article should not be the list of words at all. Uncle G 14:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that such a category be created on Wiktionary so we can link to it and remove the list entirely? If so I support. — Phil Welch 23:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So interested you are in typing about an internet abbreviation; it scares me.

Other puns and misakes would include "LMAYONAISE" which is a pun of "LMAO".

p; is commonly typed as an accidental result of "lol" because of the distance from the letters on the keyboard.

lol Emoticon

If you look at "lol", it looks like a person with his or her arms up. the "l" represents the arms and the "o" represents the head. the person in the picture raises his or her arms up to laugh.-- Zondor 13:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sence(kinda).But that has NO relevence to the "history" of lol,no one ive ever seen and no one but you thinks thats what it means.i just believe this should be removed.(JUST MY OPINION NOT TO FLAME).

Why quote bloggers as some type of authority?

The 'analysis' section of this entry is misleading and inappropriate. The social commentary of a few bloggers doesn't belong in the wikipedia.

No, but the others are. The analysis section needs cleaning up. However, the whole article is pointless drivel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.251.100 (talk)

I don't know that I agree the article is pointless drivel. However, reading the analysis section, I was asking myself: "who are these people?" While there are footnotes, possibly some description of who those people are should be incorporated into the text. Like the people quoted there, I do get irritated when I see LOL and can't fathom why it was used; at its worst it seems to be used as a longhand form of a period or as the typed equivalent of speech disfluency ("um," "er," etc.). Schizombie 17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as bloggers not being any kind of authority, well, where else are you going to find anything about it? It's not as if they have actual "Internet Acronym" scientists (at least to my knowledge; please inform me if they do) or other authoritative figures. I think at least several internet people should be considered a "reliable source" for articles and subject matter such as this.--OFX 15:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel terms

To some, however, the concept of a "correct" form of the language can be described as wholly arbitrary. Indeed, prescriptivism can be said to an essentially artificial concept created in the 18th century. One can also argue that the meaning of "Lol" is not actually the same as it's originary phrase "laughing out loud": it's use as an acronym has afforded it the meaning of a seperate lexical item, whose internet associations create a subtle form of meaning. These features are no less important for being less obvious.

Although it is the best contribution that we've had in some while, I've removed the above text from the article because it employs weasel terms ("to some", "one can also argue") rather than attributing the analysis to a specific cited source, and because its employment of weasel terms appears to be disguising original research on the part of its author, one of the commonest reasons for weasel terms. Who argues, or even points out that it can be argued, that the acronym now has a distinct meaning? Uncle G 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering students in Egypt

The word LOL is also used in Egypt, it was for the first time said by some students in faculty of Engineering in Cairo, Computer Department. After using it a lot in online chatting conversations they have begun using it in normal chatting at faculty. It's told to anyone, like "How're you lol?" which is said in arabic: "إزيك يا لول؟" or pronounced: "Ezayak ya lol?". That interogation phrase is used for the meaning of "Hey, what's up?" or "How're you bro?".

I've removed the above text from the article because, absent citations of reports by reliable sources, there is no way for readers to verify what a group of Engineering students say in conversation with one another. Uncle G 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a group of Egyptian Engineering students say 'lol' in a forest, does anyone hear them? Pastaslave 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Reference section

While "lol" does mean "a joke" in Dutch, it's not derived from lollig or anything quite like it. It's just short for "Laughing Out Loud" - by User:84.192.191.93 -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, while lol CAN be used as laughing out loud, it is also a normal word meaning "fun". Such as in the sentence "Ik schrijf wikipedia artikels, gewoon voor de lol." which means "I'm writing wikipedia articles, just for fun" that word has existed since long before "lol" was used as an acronym--193.190.253.149 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of love = No

"Lots of love" is just a spillover from an uncyclopedia article and is not commonly used on the internet anywhere else. It's not a standard usage of 'lol' in any sense of the acronym. Anyone who offers their condolences by saying 'lol' is clearly justr going to offend other people.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Lol

"Lots of love" was used far before "laugh out loud" and should be included in an article of its namesake.

Please provide a citation for that. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot provide a source, I was first introduced to the term "LOL" meaning "Lots Of Love" in SMS back in either 1996 or 1997. --Beeurd 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until you or someone else provides a reputable, published source (per Wikipeida:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research), it stays out. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a reputable source? [1] [2] [3] --Beeurd 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I stand by the third link as a reliable source. Also, I would consider Dictionary.com (the second link) to be reliable. --Beeurd 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the Dictionary.com source is better than the third source, which is a persoanl home page (even if it is from a professor, and personal websites ... are typically not acceptable as sources. The next barrier is Wiktionary. I would advise you to see if you can get the Wiktionary definition of LOL amended to include lots of love as a meaning before trying to add in this article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I shall take on your advice. But if you look closer at the 3rd link you may notice that it is an old website linked to a published book, and has several recommendations spanning back almost a decade. But I don't think there is any need to continue this debate so we'll leave it at that, methinks. :) --Beeurd 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~regruBgniK

This meaning has been mentioned in the article, even if it isn't widely used. Therefore I felt that the edit by 68.40.58.198 to include this in the Introduction isn't required. Unless there is a feeling that it should be in the introduction? --Scott 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it out myseld, last time about 10 days ago. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh(ing) Out Loud?

I always thought LOL meant "laughing out loud"; should that be included in the article? -EdGl 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLOL suggested merge

The other variants (such as ROFL are discussed in the LOL (Internet slang) article. JRawle (Talk) 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO suggested merge

Another varient being Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.124.241 (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on vandalism

"LOL (also spelled lol) is a TLA, the abbreviation for "laughing out loud", "laugh out loud", or less commonly "lots of laughs". LOL is a common element of Internet slang used historically on Usenet and poopserious sentence, for example "I don't really want to do it lol"" I made a slight edit to this article for one, of many, reasons. First, what does "poopserious" mean??? Someone has vandalized this page, I'm guessing. This was removed and the example at the end of the sentence was removed as it doesn't seem to fit. I don't know the history of LOL, so I'm leaving the Usenet thing alone, assuming that is where it originated. --4n0nym0use

I've moved your post to here at the bottom of the page as that is where we usually put new sections. You can easily revert vandalism (when it is clearly such) by clicking on the history tab and opening the last good version before the vandalism, open that version in edit mode, and then save it (put a note in the edit summary that you are reverting vandalism, 'rvv' is an acceptable abbreviation). We most certainly appreciate all reversions of vandalism. If you have any questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I just changed it and took a bunch of the pointless stuff out,, and included how to pronounce it. 207.163.165.37 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

laugh out loud & laughing out loud

These are too close; Don't Seperate

Recently vandalism the 20. april 2006

The recently vandalism/changes was made by a student in the class i'm in. He wanted to proove that the wikipedia isn't faithful and cant be a knowledge source by changing content. I was the other one last day, while i wasn't logging in. I just tried to change it back to the old content, but he kept editing it all over again. He usually used words like lars, hessel, hess because thats my real name. He then combined it with words like lol, rofl, or likewise.

Citations needed for...

These statements are questionable and unverified:

  1. Many people are critical of "LOL" and its related acronyms and there is widespread controversy over their use.
  2. Some message boards ban the usage of "LOL".
  3. In the majority of cases, "LOL" is not to be taken literally; often someone may say "lol I don't know" despite the fact that "lol" does not necessarily mean the person is laughing out loud.
  4. "LOL" can also be used to mean 'lots of love', however, this is not in the common vernacular.
  5. LOL is not generally case sensitive, however, since it usually typed in lowercase letters, a "LOL" with all caps is often used to express actual laughter, in the same way that rofl does.
  6. The word lol is also becoming used in everyday speech, particularly in societies where there is a high percentage of MSN or other instant messenger service users.
  7. It is used to take the piss out of a joke that isn't funny, by saying lol instead of actually laughing or not responding, and is also used in instances where something is actually funny.
  8. Someone may just slip the word in randomly, much like an instant message conversation, during casual conversation.

Ashibaka tock 05:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume most of these, fell under the section titled analisis, I deleted it as I honestly saw no good could come of it. -Deathawk 05:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page protected? :mad:

"Lollercaust"

"The widespread use of the term has sprung many variations such as... puns (e.g. lollerskates, lolgasm, lollercoaster, lollerfest, lollerpops, lollercaust)." Unless a large number of people actually use the latter, "lollercaust", I suggest it be deleted. I might be reading it wrong, if it's not supposed to be a pun of "Holocaust", but if it is, it's pretty offensive, IMO.65.95.61.33 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the fact that you find it offensive to be quite offensive. Please apologize. lol. 71.245.160.5

It's actually a very silly text game where you get turns every so often and use them to get army and crap, then battle other lollercausters. Userpie 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMTO

I don't know why it was removed, but I've seen it around a lot. I use it myself too. If you object, please give me a rationale. :NikoSilver: 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Variations

I know it's very similar to 'el oh el' which is already there but my friends and I use 'Ell Oh Ell' quite frequently and I was just wondering if there's any point in that being added..

  • That is not the correct way of pronouncing it;. It's pronounced "lawl". No offense, but go to a text-to-speech program and type it in. If you can't pronounce it, don't say it at all.

Censoring

I just thought I'd censor something . . .

lol--SonicTailsKnuckles 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's another variation called "lawl". The main article lists it as being a mockery of "lol" but it doesn't state the origin. The orgin comes from text-to-speech programs (primarily agents in mIRC) that try to interpret the word which ends up sounding like "lawl".

  • Lawl is not a variation, it is the correct pronunciation. Only idiots say "el-oh-el" in real life.

YES that is true "very" its the wrong pronunciation of the word.

Most-used abbreviation (?)

I kind of remember reading an article about a study saying that LOL is the most-used abbreviation in the Internet or something like that. — LazyEditor (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is. By FAR. Nice to have a source to link, though. 205.161.214.82 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLcopter?

Why does ROFLcopter link to here when this article doesn't even mention the ROFLcopter not to mention go into it's origins. --Carlinlord 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the whole article? ROFLcopter is mentioned as a varient of ROFL, and is linked to its Wiktionary entry. This article is about LOL, after all. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore it isn't. Some helpful folk has cleaned it up (or vandalised it, quite possibly) 82.69.37.32 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here; I came to Wikipedia to find out what "ROFLCOPTER" meant, and I was redirected me to this page which made no mention of it. Pennoze 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my name to this list. Redirected from ROFLcopter and it is not mentioned in the article. I did find an interesting definition on the Urban ditionary:
Invented by a Blizzard moderator on the Warcraft III forum. There is always much whining going on on those official forums, much sucking up to moderators and an awful lot of 'BLUE!!! PLZ REPLY!!!1one' (Blue = color of moderator posts), so when a mod posts something, you can bet there'll be thousands of people jumping on it, if only to spam 'BLUE FIX GARGZ PLZZZZ' or 'first reply woooot!' after it in the vain hope that the mod will read it and react.
So when one invented this new buzzword, it was grabbed and squeezed out and spread like a virus across all of the Blizzard forums and from there over the internet.
The word is derived from a unit in Warcraft III, the gyrocopter (flying machine). Your immediate response when someone masses gyros (to be funny, ruin the game, mess around or whatever) is to rofl for ten straight minutes until the copters of doom and destruction have pinpricked 1 of your 20 farms to death with their uber godly bombs. - Fosnez 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about ROFLwaffle or ROFLrocket —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidsne (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to get this off my chest

I HATE the term "LOL". It has become so overused that it's pretty much a "coverall" for anything. "My dog died" "lol". It's used to frequently and in the wrong situations. Thus, i am announcing my campaign to eraticate LOL in almost all it's forms.

This unsigned rant is from user:SpookyPig.
Eradication is impossible without replacement once something becomes as popular as "lol", so either find a better option and spread it, find a way to kill laughter itself, or get over it.
"My dog died" "lol" - That made me laugh out loud :)

I agree, 'lol' is often used to simply express that sometihng is funny, rather then that you are acyually laughing. Therefore, the only resonable solution is to replace it by saying 'tf' which of course stands for 'that's funny'. Do it. 4.229.189.171 07:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course everyone knows. Which of course you thought of. 205.161.214.82 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not possible and i dissagree i ONLY say it when somethings funny. so go away youre being unreasonable EVEN SUGGESTING THAT. oh yeah you just "insaulted everyone" who USES lol.

Proposal LOL

I propose that all comments on this page have to be signed with some variation of "lol" 71.245.160.5 07:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) LOLZ[reply]

I second that lol °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're all lolin insane! I think death by failed parachute is the only remaining option for the lot of you. --65.31.150.139 06:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Beeurd 01:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you dare "LOL" me! I'll slap you upside the head. --65.31.150.139 04:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to run you down whith my LOLLERSKATES!..........lol.

+1 LOL

LoL = Lots of love?

Has anyone encountered the acronym LoL or lol being used for the phrase "lots of love"? Carcharoth 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see there is a discussion further up the page, and the LOL disambiguation page includes "lots of love" as one possible meaning. The problem with slang and this sort of use of acronyms is that finding a published source can be difficult. Even the OED acknowledges this, with some recorded usages of words dating back earlier than their "first known published use", as words, phrases and acronyms can circulate in the vernacular (common speech) long before they are first recorded in published sources. Carcharoth 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added Lots of Love to the LOL entry at Wiktionary and it seems to have been accepted. --Beeurd 01:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a child, girlfriends and I would sign notes in school with LOL meaning lots of love, LYLAS meaning "love ya like a sister", etc.... I think in the early days of the net, people confused the old-school LOL with the modern LOL. wikipediatrix 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain a watching brief on what people mean by LOL. Lots of love and lots of luck (the latter generally sarcastically implying you'll need it) are both current among my acquaintances. What's more, these older meanings are gaining some ground, possibly as Internet acceptance increases and therefore the proportion of geeks (who have a strong usenet awareness) drops. Good research project for someone.
With such ambiguity, geek or not, using the term is IMO a sign you haven't thought too much about it! LOL (;-> Andrewa 16:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And before celebrating too much that Wiktionary has accepted lots of love as a meaning, look at this past version... There were several other meanings documented in the past, including the love one, and they were removed without comment. Andrewa 03:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that one. 205.161.214.82 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "LOL" a subliminal message?

After many hours of back-breaking work and countless dozens of lab tests, I've came to the conclusion "LOL" is "LOL" spelled backwards. My calculations indicate that the abbreviation "LOL" may be an attempt by the government to subliminally control us. There's still some tests that I need to run, but I believe that this theory has backing.--65.31.150.139 04:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you? Subliminal message? 68.54.174.43 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIA (Oh I agree) lol

Why so critical?

New comment moved from top of page.

Why is the person who wrote this so critical of negative? People use the word "lol" (pronounced as a word and not a seperate letters) just to symbolise humour or light heartidness in whatever they are typing as there is no way to portray this without body language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.86.122 (talk)

  • This article has been edited by many people, and results from a continually evolving consensus of those editors. -- Donald Albury 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We used to have analysis in the article discussing exactly that. It was removed for the wholly spurious reason that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution charges money for access to its archives. I've reinstated it. Please find more sources and improve. Uncle G 09:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please take a look at WP:RS. Something that "Brad" says in a blog is not a reliable source. What "FangedFriend" says in a game forum chat site is not a reliable source. What "Siren" says on a self-published web site is not a reliable source (did you see what WP:RS says about self-published sources?) What Doug says on a self-published web site is not a reliable source (again, see self-published sources in WP:RS.) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion page comes up 404. Weregerbil 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has changed the URL for the page, and now charges for access to its archive, does not magically make the source "unreliable". The citation included the date, title, and byline of the article, from which one can locate it as long as one is willing to pay the AJC's fee. This is why citations are not just plain URLs, and indeed why newspaper citations have included this information for as long as newspapers have had archives. Please put more effort into checking citations than you are putting. Even a simple Google Web search for the title will tell you that the article concerned is being used in university courses such as this one and cited by papers such as this one. Uncle G 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMAO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROTFLMAO... redirects here. Above, it was apparently merged together back in March... but this variant is missing, and should certainly be mentioned. Similarly, It should have a link to Internet slang. (Can't believe my sister didn't know this one. Was mining links! <g>) Regards, // FrankB 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Already covered by Wiktionary link to Category:Internet_laughter_slang. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse

Should something be mentioned about how lol is just randomly overused by young or new internet users?

Like in WoW, "I just found some new armour lol," or, "need healing lol," or even, "hang on, my phone's ringing lol".

I know. I hate people who just randomly say, "Oh hell, my grandmother fell down the stairs. LOL." I think the word Lol should just be deleted from life.--65.31.150.139 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The annoyances at myspace need to simmer down and grab a dictionary. If they can't use the internets wisely, then they need to GTFO, lol.

"Because of recent vandalism"

Any reason this article is still SProtected 5 months on? Not entirely sure that SProtect should be used like this - the encyclopedia should be as open and editable as possible - the LOL acronym is not in the same league as GW Bush. SFC9394 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed entirely. This page should be unprotected. ~iNVERTED | Rob (Talk | Contribs) 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 'sprotected' was most recently applied on August 28. It was unprotected for several months before that, and requir3ed a lot of work to keep it cleaned up. The article is a junk magnet. -- Donald Albury 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not - the notice was added then - it has been sprotected since 20th April [4] and not been unprotected for any time since then. Since anon. IP's haven’t been able to edit this page for 5 months the assertion that it is a junk magnet is a little unfounded. Even while it was unprotected it was not attracting an unmanageable amount of vandalism, a couple of anon vandal edits per day is common for a very very large number of articles. SFC9394 07:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ironically..."

There is nothing "Ironic" about the fact that people do not laugh in person when they type LOL. This is a POV observation, a matter of opinion, and WP:OR. wikipediatrix 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know lol. Wow, it's true. When I typed that I was busy not laughing at Mind of Mencia. --65.31.150.139 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying (not typing) LOL in conversation

Many of my gaming mates use the word lol in conversation, especially while online speaking on teamspeak [5] or ventrillo [6]they actually say the word "lol" especailly when speaking sarcastically i.e " Dave's sister is really good looking, lol" or "that was a good shot, lol" Meaning it was a poor shot. They also expand the word lol by saying things like "lolly" and "lollypop".

no offense that sounds incredibly gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.37.8 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Who the hell says "lol" in real life? --M.W. 07:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communications History

Regardless of its origins, lol is now often used among people communicating "one on one" on the Internet in the same way that, in the past, people using walkie-talkies would say, "Over." In this case the user is indicating that he has said all he is going to say, and is awaiting a reply. Example: "I just though you should know that I can't come see you guys tonight lol".

--wtwtwtxc 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for that? If that is based on your personal observations, then it is original research and can't be used in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the current time it is only personal observation; for this reason I placed my comments here and did not append the main text. We can our keep eyes open for possible confirmations of my observations, but, at a certain point, is it possible (perhaps through consensus) to say that something has been often enough observed to be accepted and included in the main text as original work? (Please note that I would not do so without such a consensus.)
--wtwtwtxc 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' consensus at an article cannot override Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Donald Albury 18:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that that's just a habit of people that use instant messaging a lot. ~ iNVERTED | Rob (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too have noticed mailing list users using LOL in situations when at most a smiley would be appropriate, and in some cases no humororous intent seems intended. Now that I think about it, many are probably using it as described. I'm not a prescriptionist, but I think this may be classified as misuse of the word. The people I have observed using the word thusly tend to show other signs of being new to the internet. Would a statement about this acronym becoming so widespread that some users appear to no longer know what it stands for be too controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.73.4 (talk)

Pronounce

I pronounce LOL as "low". Some say say "el oh el", which I think is the lame version of saying it. There's also "lawl", which originated from text-to-speech. Anyone think there should be a pronunciation section?--64.178.5.28 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New word?

i noticed in the artical it has someone saying a---roflmaoajig what is up with this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.235.98 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

ROFL

I do not think 'ROTFL' is the common way of saying 'rolling on the floor laughing'. It should be 'ROFL', and the ROTFL be relegated to (also known as 'ROTFL'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JK47 (talk • contribs)

In Translations in widespread use section

w stands for Warashii

No, w stands for "warai"(笑い). Please check the Japanese edition. --125.201.157.58 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

w stands for warai, which means laugh: http://www.mahou.org/Dict/?word=warai&di=0 ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk | Contribs) 11:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another useless "Here are some random occurrences in film and on television." section

What use is the section, entitled "Parody", that tells us that in one episode of one television series, a character once used the word "LOL"? And what source tells us that that actually is parody? Listing occurrences of something in film and on television is not the way to create an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's making fun of that hackneyed expression. Feel free to add other examples. Wahkeenah 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again: What source tells us that? And again: A list of further such examples is not the way to create an encyclopaedia article. Far from feeling free to add other examples, I'm feeling free to remove the section entirely, especially since several requests for sources have already gone unanswered. Uncle G 13:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tells you what? That he's making fun of it? Wahkeenah 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've asked the question twice now on this talk page, both times it being clear what is being asked for, the first espeically because I stated it in as many words. I've even linked edit summaries to our policies. Please supply the source that has now been asked for at least five times, or I will remove the section. Uncle G 14:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The source for what? The line is from the TV show. The TV show is the source. If a line is verifiably in a TV show or movie, that is the source. And that is a part of wikipedia policy, at least the way I understand it. I don't need to cite another source that says "this TV show contains this line". The TV show itself is the source. Are you looking for a source that says "Monk is a detective series with comic overtones?" Is that the problem? Wahkeenah 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know what source is being asked for. It's stated in the question right at the top of this section. Since repeated requests for a source have gone unanswered, I have removed the original research. Uncle G 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The episode will be repeated on USA Network at 6 pm eastern time today and 10 am eastern time tomorrow. I'll tape the show for you and that will be your source. Wahkeenah 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You obviously know nothing about this TV show and are unqualified to make a judgment about that entry. Wahkeenah 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not your personal pet page. Or is it? The point is that he mis-used the phrase, with a built-in redundancy. I don't have to cite that fact, since it's obvious to anyone who (1) speaks English, which I assume you do; and (2) understands the comic undertone of that TV show, which I assume you don't. Wahkeenah 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UncleG has just asked me for a third opinion about this section.
As I see it, the point of quotations of this sort are to demonstrate usage. Although WP isn't a dictionary, if one is discussing a term one does have to say what it means and how it is used. This particular quotation is well chosen, because it cleverly illustrates the use through giving a misuse. It's obvious enough that I don't think it OR. But in general, I do not like miscellaneous "examples from popular culture". A single one like this might perhaps be integrated into the article without a special heading.
If one wants to say "LOL can also be used in a satiric sense," one has to prove it. One proves it by providing examples, and relying on common sense. (As an analog, if I say "X wrote a widely-noticed book" I demonstrate it by citing the reviews. If I say "a well-received book", I include a few words from one or two of the reviews. I do not need to find a source saying that there are many reviews, or many good reviews. )
UncleG says he picked me at random, and so he did, because I have often said that I accept common sense and collection of facts as compatible with NOR, and have very broad idea about what can be included without violating that principle. I consider this acceptable. It is also not necessary to the article. I wouldn't fight against it, and I wouldn't fight for it. WP has much more problematic cases of OR to eliminate without disputing the borderline ones. Incidentally, I think this a very good article--I had not thought that so much could be said. DGG 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL vs. Hah!

Wahkeenah has added a note about "Ha!" in letter-writing having been replaced by "LOL". This is the third time he's added it in the last day or two--see these diffs: [7] [8] [9]. Salaskan reverted the first with the comment "Nonsense, LOL is an internet abbreviation and is not used in letters", and I reverted the second with the comment "Remove note about "Ha!" -- it is not and never was a standard abbreviation in letters or net communication; nor is there any evidence "LOL" is in use in letters". I don't like to revert multiple times without discussion, so I am bringing it here. Anyone else have an opinion on whether this is a useful addition to the article? Mike Christie (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As if this was a scholarly topic to begin with. Wahkeenah 10:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put it another way, that one editor has no basis to say LOL is "never" used in letters, unless he's personally read every letter written since this silly abbreviation came into being. As far as "Ha!" goes, apply a little common sense here. I'm saying that e-mails have often (though not always) replaced letter writing and that likewise LOL has often (though not always) replaced "Ha!" Asking for a "reference" for something in an article which is based entirely on anecdotal evidence is really a stretch. Truth to tell, this entire article is overkill and should be reduced to a wikidictionary definition. Wahkeenah 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFFLE

Most people in the internet use roffle which in term is the same as LOL. I request that it be added into the article. Vladimir Stalin 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shameless promition: "lol, internet" clip by jakob bienenhalm up at youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsW8n8ZvQ-M#

Made famous by the popular internet website Encyclipediadramatic.com, was the lulz turtle. As seen below. <img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/RUFFMANL/untitled-89.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a> (-demoscene fan)

笑

笑 redirects here, but I don't see it in the article. The Storm Surfer 01:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the redirect to Laughter, as that is its meaning in Chinese. bibliomaniac15 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case

"LOL (also written lol) " should be "lol (occasionally written LOL)". I don't believe i have ever seen it all caps before.205.161.214.82 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet slang

Comments at Talk:Internet slang#Merge please --h2g2bob (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacetti and Molsk

We read:

Lacetti, professor of humanities at Stevens Institute of Technology, and Molsk in their essay entitled The Lost Art of Writing<ref>{{cite news|author=Silvio Lacetti and Scott Molsk|url=http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0603/08special_writing.html|title=Cost of poor writing no laughing matter|work=[[Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]|date=[[2003-09-06]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release|publisher=[[Stevens Institute of Technology]]|title=Article co-authored by Stevens professor and student garners nationwide attention from business, academia|date=[[2003-10-22]]|url=http://howe.stevens.edu/babbio/pressroom/20031022-368-writingoped.html}}</ref> are critical of the acronyms, predicting reduced chances of employment for students who use such acronyms, stating that "Unfortunately for these students, their bosses will not be 'lol' when they read a report that lacks proper punctuation and grammar, has numerous misspellings, various made-up words, and silly acronyms." (emphasis added)

I had a vague premonition that the article could be so bad it was funny, and therefore went to take a look. The AJC website first flashed something about the need for (free!) registration, but before I'd had time to consider that request, it followed up with announcement that the page was unavailable.

Is this article worth searching out? The summary suggests it's just the same old same old-fogeyism, about how the language of Shakespeare, Lincoln, Churchill, etc etc is going to the dogs, etc. First, how is the lack of "proper punctuation and grammar", or how are "misspellings", relevant to "LOL", etc.? Secondly, do L&M actually claim that people use "LOL" in their job applicants or reports? This would rather surprise me if it were true; indeed, evidence for it might merit a mention in this Wikipedia article. I for example don't use "LOL" (except when, extremely rarely, I write about it); but where the situation seems to demand it I might write "fuck" (oops, I just wrote it there); however, since my IQ is over 80 I know not to write it in a job application or in a report. -- Hoary 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected again

The article was being repeatedly vandalized and was repeatedly having the same silly "content" inserted. This is a waste of people's time.

(In response to a question above about protection, no I've no idea why an article about as trivial a subject as this attracts vandalism on anything like the order of that directed at the Great Leader (Dear Leader?) of the Free World, George W. Bush, but it does all the same.) -- Hoary 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation...

"ROFL" pronounced /roʊfl/ or "raf•ful" and "LOL" pronounced /lʌl/ or "lahl" Whenever I have heard either "ROFL" or "LOL" spoken, they have not been pronounced as this. "ROFL" was pronounced more like "Roffle", and "LOL" pronounced like "Doll", but with an L instead of D. Mr. Bridger 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciations you have described are exactly those described by the IPA in preceding sentence. —ptk✰fgs 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO

I always thought that ment In My Honest Opinion, I think the meaning of IMHO should be changed to (In My Humble/Honest Opinion)

This is my first comment, sorry if I posted in the wrong place.

Tylea002 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL or lol in Brazil

In Brazil LOL and lol actually represent a person lifting their arms in joy, as in \o/

--189.13.193.155 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol article

I seriously loled after I read the article. :P Or maybe LMAO'ed. It looks incredibly funny to get so serious about some 'lol' and ever talking (writing) about it so emotionlessly. Plus that ROFL miraculously changed to ROTFL for whatever reason since being called not an acronym for 'roll on THE floor laughing'. That made me really laugh out loud a few times. lol. Just had to spam your pretty discussion page with that. x_x 555.

this Article is Far too long on the subject of LOL. this says a lot about the frikin wik'

ROTFPML

http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=ROTFPML&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=

Only 1000 hits. why is it in the article then?

I must admit that 1000 isn't a lot of hits, but please try to make a valid argument of some kind. WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't count. The fact that it is a section and not an article gives it a little more freedom as to whether or not it's notable, so your argument may even be less valid in this case. --Mathew Williams 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'LOLx Image Macros' section

I find this section to be highly dubious... I've personally seen 'LOL' related macros since at least 2004, whereas this section refers to them appearing in 'late 2006'. Should I change the section or just delete it, as it seems to be a bit useless in its current state? 24.13.93.171 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a stupid question but...

I was wondering if anyone know the origin of the phrase "lol u tk him 2 da bar|?" I think it's just a meaningless phrase, and I've seen it on 4chan, among other places. I think that the fact that it is typed the exact same way nearly every time indicates that it has a hint of meaning, and some kind of traceable origin. --Mathew Williams 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

LOL (Internet slang) → LOL — When someone types in "LOL", he obviously expects to get the article about the widespread internet slang word. Most things on the dabpage LOL are actually referring to something called Lol, without caps. I propose that the disambiguation page (LOL) be moved to Lol once this has been performed, and that {{otheruses|lol}} be added to LOL (internet slang). —Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from LOL (Internet slang) to LOL as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies as research?

"Franzini[2] concurs, stating that there is as yet no research that has determined the percentage of people who are actually laughing out loud when they write "LOL".". The things people can pass off as a research activity never ceases to astound me LOL! (Mr. Franzini, if you're reading this, slate that one up in the "wrote LOL but did not actually laugh simultaneously" column) Quinkysan 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree

--194.125.103.98 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)--194.125.103.98 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roflcopter

Roflcopter redirects here, but no mention of it is made in the article. Mikesc86 22:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

muie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.252.204 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the roflcopter! 


LOLOLOOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
             |
          ___^____
 L    ___/      []\
LOL---             \
 L    ---           ]
        \----------|
            I    I
     _______I____I______/

just need someone to publish it so we can put it in the article 203.24.97.5 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.97.5 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.35.168.133 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol

lol means LAUGH OUT LOUD which is used by many teens—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.161.55 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BFN?

I have never once seen someone write BFN (by for now). How can that be one of the three most popular initials? I've seen TTFN, but never BFN. Has anyone seen BFN? Entbark 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't as well. And few do...Maybe this should be switched by another slang word, like, I'd say, hmm, BRB (be right back) or so? ((And of course I'm not logged in. Aveyond06)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.9.32 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QLTM Section

"QLTM is almost the opposite to LOL and is an acronym for "quietly laughing to myself". "QLTM" is often substituted with "LOL" or "ROFL" or "LMAO" by users of internet there is also ROLF which stands for "Rolling on Laughing Floors" along with LIHD which is "Laughing in High Definition" instant messaging programs such as AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, Windows Live Messenger, Google Talk, Skype and many others, as well as E-mail, text messaging and other forms of electronic communications."

This section makes so little sense that I can't begin to figure out exactly what was meant by the original writer. Can someone please fix (or at least help to) this? XreDuex 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LOL&oldid=170895576"