Talk:List of Internet slang phrases/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sources

I fancy it might be useful to collate a list of reliable sources we agree upon to 1)point people at every time they say "urban dictionary" and 2)so that I/we can remember them. A list of unreliable sources might be useful too, to point people at every time they get as far as "urb". So, in no particular order: -Splash - tk 08:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe one of the problems / issues raised by this page is that some of the terms have been around for so long that no-one is really sure who created the terms and any external citation will be as much a POV as any other. The fact that we cannot show an etymology for every common term should not prevent us from including it here where there is a general consensus that the term exists and means what is written here. --AlisonW 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's internet slang, finding one source that gives it a meaning should be very easy. If it's just made up, it will be correspondingly difficult. Also note that we have several articles on particualrly venerable pieces of slang; generally they contain references themselves that can be copied into this list. Consensus does not exceptions to core policies make. -Splash - tk 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable source? From Urban Dictionary the opening paragraph reads: Urban Dictionary is an online internet dictionary whose definitions are written by users. Most words and phrases featured on Urban Dictionary are slang, particularly new, urban, or ambiguous terms. With an Alexa ranking as one of the 2000 highest web traffic sites, Urban Dictionary is the "Internet's unofficial slang authority". Magonaritus 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But you're totally wrong. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not say that a reliable source MUST be edited, just that it TENDS to be edited. It says for example: "Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are generally more credible, all other things being equal, than those which are not." Edited content is an INDICATOR of a reliable source, NOT A PREREQUISITE.
For Internet slang, who are the "peer" experts? The "peer" experts are other Internet denizens. In Urban Dictionary, Internet denizens vote up the good definitions and vote down the bad definitions. Thus it IS peer reviewed.
Now that I have corrected your flawed reasoning and factually incorrect assertions, will you now concede that Urban Dictionary is a reliable source? Magonaritus 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No. The common standard, layed out more precisely in WP:V is that the source have editorial control or peer review or fact checking. Urban Dictionary is made up as it goes along without any level of expert oversight whatsoever. It is an unreliable source useful only in an article about itself. It is never appropriate sourcing for any other article on Wikipedia. -Splash - tk 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to emphasize the point: it is accepted de facto policy on Wikipedia that Urban Dictionary is NOT to be considered a reliable source. Accordingly, I have removed citations pointing to it from the article. I have also added an explicit comment in the edit pane since this seems to be a recurring problem. nadav 09:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

List of reliable sources

Possibly reliable sources

  • http://www.acronymfinder.com They link to commerce very quickly, don't give sources for most of their expansions and are not published by an organisation of any (apparent) repute. They also accept user submissions, but say NOTE: We don't accept made-up definitions. What constitutes made-up or not probably relies on someone else's opinion however.
    • Apparently someone at Acronym Finder independently verifies submissions before adding it to the site. Encarta does the same for its online thing, so since Encarta is considered a reliable source, I'd say this should be. --Rory096 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jargon File may be. See #Is the Jargon File a reliable source? for current discussion of this. -Splash - tk 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No Slang. They accept user submissions, but they check the submissions first. /Jiiimbooh 18:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't look like the checking is too rigorus. --Rayc 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you base that on? /Jiiimbooh 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really buy anything that allows user submissions unless that entity has established itself independently as reliable through its review process. The "guidelines" on this page are almost non-existent and don't actually make any requirement that the phrase/abbrev exist elsewhere or anything. For the same reasons as AcronymFinder, I do not personally find this to be an acceptable source. -Splash - tk 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the amount of dictionaries that is specialized in internet slang/abbreviations that meet your standards is very limited because this is still such a new thing. /Jiiimbooh 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thus the problem. If such a thing was easy to find, the list would of already been referenced. --Rayc 21:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's fairly easy to find a site that confirms a particular slang, but not if we're going to be as picky about what sites should be considered reliable as Splash is. I don't think we should be that picky when it comes to internet slang because of what I said above. That said, accepting the voted least usefull description at the Urban dictionary as a reliable source is probably not a good idea./Jiiimbooh 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The mission is not to collect anything somebody once invented an acronym for and used in a chat room somewhere. The mission is to document what other, reliable sources have documented. We absolutely should be picky: we should seek high standards, not low ones. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. They aggregate what other sources reports. See WP:RS for why no part of Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary are acceptable. The sources used need to have established their reliability - usually this means having demonstrated over time that they have editorial standards good enough to use in derivative work. There is absolutely no problem in not including a term if it cannot be located in such reliable sources. As WP:V exhorts, the criterion is verifiability (preferably from multiple published, sources), not truth. -Splash - tk 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cryer Glossary Good or No Good? Your 2 cents please. Dragix 03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably inadequate by itself, see their FAQ: "as a guide anything that is likely to be of interest to an element of the IT community will probably be included", without apparent further verfication or review. -Splash - tk 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would anyone object to Computer Hope's dictionary? It seems well written and well filtered too. Encouragingly, the only way for a user to suggest a new term is here, where you can only enter the term itself and not its meaning, implying that they then go and get hold of the meaning themselves. Given that their dictionary is not just a list of every word ever, it seems ok to me. -Splash - tk 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved to the list of reliable sources

I thought that if something is moved from possibly reliable to reliable that we can move the discussion (if any) to here. That way if you see a new source listed among the reliable ones that you may not agree with you can quickly find the old discussion here so you know why it got added to the list. /Jiiimbooh 00:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Webopedia They accept user submissions, but on the submission page they say: "In the comments field, if possible please provide any information that will help Webopedia's editors when researching the term." which suggests that they actually check that the terms are real and in use before adding them. /Jiiimbooh 15:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Replying to myself here... ;)
"Full-time experienced editors gather information from standards bodies, leading technology companies, universities, professional online technical publications, white papers and professionals working in the field. The sources used are often listed in the links section below the definition if the sources can provide more information than was included in the definition. Every definition is verified among multiple sources; definitions are never based on just one source." [1]
If no one protest I'll move this to "reliable sources" in a couple of days. /Jiiimbooh 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Said and done. /Jiiimbooh 00:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice this. I do notice, however, that that list is for text message abbreviations, which this article is not. -Splash - tk 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary and/or Delete

Two months ago, I spent two weeks editing this page for style and removing all of the made-up and otherwise unnecessary words. Compare the page as it stands now (May 25) to what it looked like on March 23 for an eye-opener as to how quickly this page can deteriorate. Without constant upkeep and prevention of both intentional and unintentioanl vandalism, this page is bound to remain a sprawling, incoherent mess. Moving all of the individual entries from here to Wiktionary would preserve useful entries and eliminate pointless ones. This article needs another vote for deletion. H3G3M0N 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article's only purpose seems to be a target for vandalism, I cannot believe the AfD result was keep. If this article crosses 50 kb, I'll seriously consider relisting it. The possible value of this article is far outweighed by users having to maintain it every few days. A permanent semi-protect would be just what this article needs, no IP or new user contribs, it would significantly decrease the vandalism, if not stop it all-together, we could keep the article, and acronyms like "rape the beaver", or whatever it was will not pop up every dozen or so minutes. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-internet Slang?

I was just wondering why there are so many non-internet words on here? EX: CB jargon is not internet slang, it's CB jargon... also, AIM, D&D, DIY, Dilligaf, etc. (the list could go on forever...) are not internet slang at all... a large number of the entries on this page are either A:) a lot older than the internet, or B:) not even slang... can we at least get some ruling as to what does or does not belong on this page? - Adolphus79 04:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough line to trace, to decide that kind of thing, and that's why this page would probably be better off deleted. ForbiddenWord 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

User:Splash removed all the information in this article, citing it as being unreferenced. While there are refs at the bottom of the page, I'm not going to get into a rv war with him on this. If that is the will of the community, then so be it, it's just the list is useless without content and should be AfDed if this stands. Though, I remeeber time having an article on lol, so there should be some reference out their.--Rayc 03:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply to a talk page message essentially fits here too. See this diff. Whether or not terms can be referenced, WP:ISNOT a dictionary. I expect that a decent article can be crafted on Internet slang, without the need for a formless list of dicdefs. See for example Sexual slang, which formerly was a similar trainwreck to this article. -Splash - tk 03:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Which reminds me. We already have that article. A few days ago, I redirected this one there. Some editor reverted me "because it breaks things". I presume that's a reference to double redirects. The solution to that, of course, is to fix the double redirects (e.g. by bot) rather than to reinsert the stuff that was formerly here. -Splash - tk 03:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ya, sorry about doubting you. I've been RC patroling too much lately, and incorrectly thought it was a vandal blanking when I went to look up IIRC. Here is a good link to start off with. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4074004.stm - BBC is a peer review source, I hope. - Actually, that teen speak. Hrmp... I'll let someone elsefind a good link.. I'm bad at this.--Rayc 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, the BBC will do. But as you say, that's "teen speak" (?) rather than INet slang. Also note that the contents of the article are in large part reader-contributed. I wonder if we have a clear picture of what internet slang is? -Splash - tk 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is Internet slang. :) Of course, I think this might be the one article where it can use itself as a reference. If the definition of internet slag is slang on the internet, and wikipedia is on the internet, then slang found on wikipedia is internet slang. But, avoid self references and all probably cuts that argument to shreads. How about [2]--Rayc 04:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
How about a permanent semi-protect for this article? It would prevent all of those bogus entries from IP's and new users. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Na, if we don't do a permanent semiprotect for George W. Bush, I doubt we should do it here. (On second thought, we actually do that.. ) What about the dictionary.com reference? Is it any good? I'm all for going through and sourcing the old list to dictionary.com info, or http://slang.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?string=exact&acronym=ADN&s=r Acronym finder. Are those any better then the refs we had before?--Rayc 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The need for semiprotection is much less now that the article is a ... manageable ... size. Watchlists and merciless editing will hopefully suffice. The dictionary.com thought is good, because they provide sources back to established print dictionaries. I'm a bit confused by Acronym Finder; they appear rather keen to take me on to commercial websites. As Rayc observes, there is already the article Internet slang and, since WP:ISNOT a dictionary, we could just redirect there... -Splash - tk 04:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, but as those people say, it will mess with the redirects. Not that they will produce a double redirect (that's easy to fix), but if someone types IIRC into wikipedia and comes up with Internet Slang, the article doesn't say what it means. As for Acronym Finder, that is what dictionary.com normally redirect to for internet slang.--Rayc 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest then that we delete the dicdef redirects, too, but I suppose that's a bit too far :). Anyway. I'm inclined to think that when dic.com redirect us to acronym finder and that's the only source they provide, that we should probably not rely on that, since there's no particular evidence that they are of peer-review standard. Whereas, in the link to LOL you gave above, dic.com links to an actual dictionary which gives me (at least) a warm feeling inside (interestingly, [3] gets LOL wrong, imo). dic.com also links to FOLDOC — I'm unclear on whether that is user-contributed or whether it has some rigour it appears to be edited, according to our article, with readers only able to make suggestions to the editor. So it's probably a reliable source, too. -Splash - tk 05:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Splash: You're correct in saying that this is completely unverifiable, full of dicdefs and is not encyclopaedic. However, that doesn't mean you should just blank the entire page. Discuss it on the talk page and AfD first, because if a list of unverified slang doesn't contribute to an encyclopaedia, then a blank page certainly doesn't. I don't really care what happens, but I do think that the content should be left in while any decisions are being made. We don't blank articles in AfD because they're unverifiable, we simply argue that in the discussion. --Rory096 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This had an AfD already, but people decided to keep the unverifiable, unencyclopedic content because it was useful to them for somehting. That's not actually a decision they get to make though. We do, and should, remove unverifiable content from articles because otherwise we'd be leaving unverifiable content in articles. Anyway, the page isn't blank anymore, and we can carefully rebuild it as we go. -Splash - tk 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so should the old version of this page be moved to List of Internet slang/old like was done in List of sexual slurs/old? --Rory096 08:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, but didn't really see the need. It seems better to have one, single, continuous development history. The reasons for the move, of course, was to prevent people from reverting. :) -Splash - tk 08:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely NOT a fan of reverting this page. It was usefull as it was when you wanted to know a weird abbreviation means, even if most of the info was unverified. /Jiiimbooh 08:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do, though. You may want to read this email by the boss. Titoxd(?!?) 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here coming for reference...

...but I found the page blanked.

And I bet I'll not be the only one since there are about 500 articles and redirects linking here.

For future reference the useful version seems to be: here --62.57.95.179 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a Reliable Source

Just to let everyone know, I'm putting back in every slang on the old list that had an article attached to it. If you wish to dispute the entry as unreliable, AfD the article in question... then remove it from the list.--Rayc 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but only add the ones that actually mention the acronym, otherwise it's not a source because while it may talk about what the term is slang for, it doesn't verify that the term is real. --Rory096 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't add ones that are clearly unsourced, like when they have an {{unsourced}} tag and no references at all or just Urban Dictionary, which isn't a reliable source. --Rory096 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
And make sure they're not redirects back to this article! --Rory096 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about all that... took me an hour and then I looked back and saw all the problems. Though I still think if a article is unverified, the complaint should go against the subarticle and not the addition on the list. Also there is a lot of sub-slangs that have been mixed in to the internet- I mean, why did you remove w00t? l33t is a subsection of internet slang. Still want to move this over to wikitonary though.--Rayc 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
w00t uses only Urban Dictionary and 2 other completely unreliable sources as references. To be honest, I don't care about other articles (note that they're not really sub-articles, more like related articles), and they probably wouldn't be deleted in AfD because even though they're unverifiable, people will want to keep it because they're notable. --Rory096 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it also states it's a portmanteau of woo and loot, which it is. It also references wikitonary... but on looking at that (just now), wikitonary refrences us. Dho! infinate loop reference.--Rayc 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said below , things that are just regular terminologies are not slang. They are regular abbreviations that have their own articles. -Splash - tk 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the Jargon File a reliable source?

The Jargon File glossary Jargon Lexicon Glossary contains a lot of slang and acronyms that could go in this list.

It has been quite peer-reviewed since 1975. And contains a description about a paragraph long for each of the entries. Does it meet WP:VERIFY? Is it a reliable source? --62.57.95.179 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's verifiable, but the problem becomes is it internet slang? I mean 411 is verifiably slang, but not verifiably internet slang.--Rayc 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's "hacker's jargon", which includes the subset "hacker's internet slang". It consists of entries like w00t, YHBT or AFK that are common to most internet users slang. (411 doesn't appear in the glossary so, i don't know what you meant, 404 does appear) --62.57.95.179 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that this list includes no verifiable sources. Take for example the article Attoparsec, which cites its justification as something "reported to be in use among hackers in the UK". No, I don't think the Jargon File is a reliable, verifiable, encyclopedic source appropriate for use in Wikipedia. --ForbiddenWord 15:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that probably the Jargon File is ok for the following reasons:

  1. FOLDOC cites it e.g. here
  2. They have received many awards from the - let us say - informed media, including a couple of apparently educational institutes.
  3. Here they lay out their 'editorial' standards. They are not bad, and probably better than most of the occasional editors to this article. It is slightly ephemeral however, since they remove old terms altogether, but that firms it up as a decent-enough source, if anything. That link contains some good standards we could consider adopting as a de facto policy for this article.
  4. Attoparsec is a factually correct article; it just has no source for the claim that it is in use in the UK hacker community.

So, when used with some care, it's probably ok. -Splash - tk 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the bit that bothers me. While it may be factually correct as far as the measurements go, and the calculation of rate, etc. etc. correct, that doesn't change the fact that it's missing the vitally important source that correlates the claims made on that page to use in reality. Without that source, it's nothing more than a fancy definition, and the lack of a substantiated claim of it being used in reality is what makes it inappropriate for it to be used in an encyclopedic effort like Wikipedia. Rumor and hearsay aren't a foundation for an encyclopedia at all. If you'd like to talk about this some more, please let me know on my talk page, I don't want to clutter up this talk page with too-lengthy debate. :) --ForbiddenWord 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Jargon File should be considered an authoritative tertiary source. We know the author. It's been published in numerous hardcopy editions. It's peer-reviewed. It is often cited by scholarly works. It meets all the criteria of a reliable source as per the policy guideline. That it doesn't somehow list its own sources is wholly irrelevant to its usefulness or reliability, and I don't think a good faith argument can be made otherwise. Tfg 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect

Anyone up for a semiprotect? Half of the stuff Rory096 removed wasn't from me, but from outside IPs rebuilding the list. It took them only a half a day to get it up to this. Sorry to the IP I was just talking to--Rayc 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Naw, it's not actually vandalism, it's just lax editorial standards. This is part of the reason why I just redirected it originally, since that reduces the audience that can work out how to edit it :) -Splash - tk 21:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Things that are terminology are almost by definition not slang which necessarily assigns a name other than the original to something. So I took those kinds of things out. -Splash - tk 21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from: BRB would not be slang, because it contains no slang words. But on the other hand, the entire phrase itself might be considered internet slang because it's used only on the internet. For example, if my mom left the house and said "Bee Are Bee", I wish she'd stop using internet slang, even though "Be Right Back" are not in themselves slang words. Dragix 02:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I think BRB probably makes the grade as an atomic unit in its own right. By 'terminology' I meant a collection of essentially technical terms that I removed that were internet-related acronyms. Things like DoS (denial of service), which for some reason I left behind, are not really slang in the sense of the def you put on the article, or my looser one above - it's just an abbreviation of a proper technical term, without substitution or different meaning. An example that I did remove was TLA, for three-letter acronym. -Splash - tk 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Many titles redirect here, but...

As mentioned in an earlier discussion there's quite a few titles that redirect to this article, but Splash has basically removed most of the content. Now, I'm not disputing whether this should have been done, but leaving these redirects hasn't been helpful when the meaning of the redirects are essentially gone. I guess the issue is whether the abbreviations/slang/etc. are actually "internet" slang or general usage, or in many cases actually slang at all; even with the careful rebuilding of the content most of what I'm seeing are actually acronyms (or perhaps acronym-slang?). In any case, it might be more helpful to change those "dead" redirects to something that specifically points to NetLingo.com and/or other sites. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki does not permit hard off-site redirects. Yes, I agree this page needs a title change, but I remain hopeful for now that someone might even add some slang to it soon. As for the missing entries, well, they are easily fixed by adding them back in with a reference. If every anon who cannot possibly have missed the instructions took the 60 seconds to do the job properly, it would have been rebuilt by now. -Splash - tk 10:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NetLingo

I know that Netlingo is listed under reliable sources, but just to make sure, does anyone object to that source?--Rayc 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it repeatedly while it kept appearing at the bottom of the article page, and it wasn't in the list of reliable sources last time I looked. Looking at their site, they have no particular claim to authority, they allow user submissions, see this for a terrifying list of things we'd have to accept, and their mission is essentially to collect any and all things related to the internet without discrimination. They have some good entries, like hacker, but generally they don't cite their sources, don't have any particular reputation and I don't think they suffice for Wikipedia purposes. -Splash - tk 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well someone added it to the list of reliable sources up above. To bad, too. The thing had about as much coverage as Urban dictionary.--Rayc 15:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Are my sarcasm filters working properly? That sounds like a good reasons to not use it! But see below. -Splash - tk 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps what I'm really objecting to is that it collects neologisms, which Wikipedia wishes to avoid documenting until they are established. Perhaps a reliable source for non-neologistic terms. Which raises the obvious problem of filtering neologisms out from among internet 'slang'. -Splash - tk 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that IP's are just going to keep adding these dumb things and were going to keep removing them until find references for the most common ones. BTW Splash take a look at my sandbox- when complete, I'll be able to tell you if something is verifiable via the current list of reliable sources. I'm just not going to start mass porting them- we first have to define the scope of the page.--Rayc 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. There must be an enormous amount of linkage to this page, that gets picked up by Google or something. I'm sure they're not all typing "list of Internet slang" in the search box. Is your sandbox ported from the article before I...edited...it? So your plan is to work through that checking the sourcing of each of the terms that was here before, and then port back those we don't recover by the time you're done? I'm impressed. That's committment! I do go through this list adding sources periodically, but it's fairly tedious work... -Splash - tk 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't plan on add even 10% of that massive list back. It will probably get deleted by me after I get bored with it. But it will be useful in determining the types of things that should and shouldn't go on this page.--Rayc 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet talk abbreviations

I discovered this and it made my eyes water and bleed. It is a thousand times worse than this article ever was. For now, I've redirected it here, but I do not expect that to stick. -Splash - tk 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

E-gad! It didn't even have a category! I hate it when people do that. Of course, as to size, it looks on par with the pre-splash verson of this page- only no references.--Rayc 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought it looked longer; maybe that was just a goggling reaction. -Splash - tk 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary by Farlex

Located at TheFreeDictionary.com [4]. Somebody just added two refs to this, is it reliable? --Rory096 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears to be a mirror of several sites, and its acronym thing seems to be The Acroynm Finder, so I guess we should just source that instead. --Rory096 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Notice that when they don't have something on that site, it suggests you to us.--Rayc 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Their encyclopaedia portion is a mirror of us. --Rory096 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still do not really buy into Acronym Finder as a reliable source; I do not see that their editorial standards are equivalent to Encarta, seeing as their mission is basically to collect any and all acronyms and they have no particular reputation built by their standards, like Encarta do. If FreeDictionary reference some other reliable source, we should probably reference that, in the same way as the couple of dictionary.com examples we already have. -Splash - tk 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

fuck-o-nyms

As I've been going through the old list, a large percentage of them seem to be what I like to call fuck-o-nyms, or synonyms with the word fuck added to them. For example LOL's is LFOL, IDC's (I don't care) is IDFC, RTM (Read the manual) is RTFM. How should we handle these? No inclusion unless referenced separatly, references that mention both allowed, a star next to each one that can have a F added to it and a note at the bottom... etc? Any ideas?--Rayc 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Certainly no inclusion unless referenced seperately; they don't become verifiable just because something else related was verifiable, I think. If they are available from reliable sources then probably they should be listed comma-seperated with the 'main' entry (subjectively) and given their own citation. If this becomes unwieldy, then perhaps we might rethink.
Or, we could decide on an editorial standard to not include any of them, and provide a note at the top of the article (an encyclopedic bit!) commenting that "...some of these entries can also have fuck added to them, usually resulting in the addition of an F in the relevant part of the acronym". (This is a good argument for actually writing an article, incidentally...) -Splash - tk 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Like the second idea, it will get rid of 42 of the old entries. Just to let you know, my referencing is currently up to 60 foldoc refs. I'll be making some more sugestion for non-inclusion to cut that number down, hopefully.--Rayc 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Then you also need to fix NPI (probably referring to ninguna puta idea). The present link is nonsensical, referring to an NFI entry that no longer exists. I agree that removing the fuck-o-nyms was a good idea, but checking for links would probably also be a good idea. - PhilipR 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Impractical

This list's system of references/links is impractical, soon we will have several thousand references at the bottom to obscure forums and strange occult sites documenting acronyms like AHOLS (All hail our lord satan!), and ISLTSAIWLSRRGAILBMAPGT (I saw, like, this shop, and it was, like, sooo really really good, and I, like, bought myself a puppy gůgů there!). Asking for references is not a solution, anyone can get them or create them. I still think a permanent semi-protect would do. This article accounts for so much vandalwhacking. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Check WP:SEMI. I'm not going to semiprotect this, and neither will any other admin. Asking for references that are reliable sources should be enough. Since then any that someone "creates" simply won't do. And, if they can get a reliable verification of the term then, life-or-death of the article aside, it should be included. So most of the examples you give would never make it into the article, adn those types of sources wouldn't stand up to any good editors next pass at the article. I agree, though, that the references list is likely to get unwieldy. There is the possibility of aggregating all the references from a given source into a single, multiple-ref'd source. But then, List of ethnic slurs seems to be managing ok with its 200+ refs... -Splash - tk 13:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ya, I was thinking the same thing, like puting all the refs from Foldoc into one ref. Does anyone know if the ref style allows for something like that? Linking to the main page of a website that is used in 30 or 40 places?--Rayc 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the syntax does. You use <ref name="foldoc">blah blah</ref> the first time and then just <ref name="foldoc" /> subsequently. Cite.php then renders it appropriately. -Splash - tk 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That might be a good solution for the references, however I still believe that this article would benefit extremely from a semi-protect. I don't think whomever wrote those rules counted on an article like this. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: That Reference Syntax is God. Dragix 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of this article

I think that the page should be moved to 'List of Internet slang phrases' because 'List of Internet slang' doesn't make sense. SilverBulletx3chatteh 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I know slang can be used as a plural form of the singular slang word, i.e. identically to slang words. Nevertheless I'm no native, so take this with a grain of salt. --logixoul 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

More proposals on exclusion

I'm now done with my sweep, using FOLDOC (88 hits), now I'm trying cut the waist. I found these lists (Which BTW, also need a huge amount of clean up and referencing):

I think we should keep these list separate and reference them at the top, to keep this list manigable. So, for you consideration:

Should we allow online gaming slang on this list?

Example:CTF "Capture the flag"

If it has its own article, then no. We can just port such terms there, so long as they are referenced when they arrive here. -Splash - tk 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we allow thread-based slang?

Example:IBTL "In before the lock"

If it has its own article, then no. We can just port such terms there, so long as they are referenced when they arrive here. (I cannot believe h the continued existence of that article.) -Splash - tk 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am inclined to absorb that article here and apply the same editorial standards to it. A redirect for now would be harmless enough; almost nothing links to it. -Splash - tk 04:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we allow computer jargon?

Example:Blue Screen of Death

If used as internet slang also, yes. If simply an acronym for some technical term, no. If an acronym standing as slang (as BSOD is) then possibly, depending on whether it has currency on the internet, as judged from the reliable sources it appears in. Probably BSOD is a borderline case. -Splash - tk 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we allow leet?

Example:n00b

Doesn't this have its own unreferenced mire somewhere? If it doesn't, the probably some of it, if it is slang, not merely a leet-ified version of something, and in that case only with a reliable source. These are probably hard to locate for Leet. -Splash - tk 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for that list, but I think someone actually succesfully deleted it. --Rayc 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that L33t should generally not be allowed, but n00b isn't a good example because it has become common use on the internet (not only amoung those who "l33tify" everything) and thus have a place here. /Jiiimbooh 14:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we allow non-english internet slang?

Example:JAK: jazak allah khair

No, this is the English Wikipedia and it documents things in English. Such terms can be transwikied to the relevant language if someone's feeling keen. -Splash - tk 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

--Rayc 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)(signing for everything from proposals)

!!!1

Redirects here. Perhaps it sould link somewhere else?

Acronynms

THis seems ot be really a list of acronyms. And it hardly scratches the surface. E.G. BTDTGTTS, YHM, YMMV, SWSTWS ETC. Rich Farmbrough 12:00 19 June 2006 (GMT).

Yeah, it was much larger, but the end result of a bunch of people bickering back and forth about what should and should not be here has been that only listings that can be cited are now listed. And not always even then: I have listed 'YHBT' four times now, providing a new citation each time, only to see it deleted again and again. I warn the next person to delete it that I will seek formal arbitration. Tfg 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you've come to the talk page about it though. (The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content disputes, by the way). The reason(s) for the removals centre on the reliability of your sources. One editor or another has not felt that they are authoritative, reliable, edited, good sources. Sources that simply collect every acronym going aren't really considered useful, since they have weak standards (often none at all) for verification and sourcing. The first few sections of this discussion page, starting at #Sources give some that are considered by common agreement to be reliable and some thinking about others that might be. See if you can find YHBT in some of those preferred sources. It'll stick if you can. -Splash - tk 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Each time, I have cited a new source that was already cited at the bottom of the page. Each time, nuked. It's in three sources I and others have used, plus the Jargon File/New Hacker's Dictionary, which is a *better* source than any citation extant on that page. Googling the phrase comes up with 126,000 responses, showing that it is very common usage (and a list of this kind is if nothing else a list of usage). There is no argument to be made for its deletion. Tfg 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree that the Jargon File is better than the Merriam-Webster dictionary, for example, so there are certainy better sources available. This said, I do think that JF is reliable when used with care. In the "attoparsec" example given above, I do think it a poor source since anyone might invent such a term, even though factually accurate, without it having any actual currency at all. YHBT, on the other hand is at least implicitly sourced to Usenet so they do have some basis for their claim, even if not as explicit as one might rigorously like. So I think that, where JF cites their sources to at least some sensible degree, and those sources are good, we can use it. Where they do not, and they seem to just be collecting whatever came their way, I think we must exercise restraint. Tfg, you sound angry. Don't be. Things can be worked out without resorting to threats of Arbitration on your first edit to the talk page. -Splash - tk 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it is listed on dictionary.com [5], Acronymfinder [6], the Jargon file, [7], no slang, urban dictionary [8], wikitonary [9], and it has it's own webdomain that refers to itself [10]. That being said, I find it ironic that the person who keeps adding it sound like he could use it in context on this page.--Rayc 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(Though no netlingo listing... odd.)--Rayc 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, dictionary.com is reliable (I think) when it cites some other reliable source. It is effectively just an aggregation service doing no work of its own. Acronymfinder doens't really make the grade to my mind, since they collect indiscriminately on a user's say so (and are also another aggregator), Noslang again is user submitted in at least substantial part, Urban dictionary (let's not go there looking for reliability!) and Wiktionary, well, if it cites a source then we should just use that ourselves.
That said, with some determined Googling, I did find this list from Microsoft. I'm inclined to think that that very limited list from a company such as Microsoft can be cited as a reliable source, even if some of the acronyms there are a bit obscure. It includes YHBT, though. -Splash - tk 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Combine sources

Currently each entry has its own source - there are around 40 references to around 15 unique sources. Although this has the benefit of providing an instant URL for each entry, there is a great deal of redundancy - especially considering some sources are lists which probably contain most entries anyway. Would it not make sense to link to a reputable list where possible, or even a single URL to a reputable searchable database in order to prevent this redundancy? -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no agreement about what a reputable source is. We've got at least one so-called editor who doesn't consider the Jargon File -- the singular and primal source for netspeak that was the influence to all that followed -- as a reputable source. As long as editors like those want to stick their noses into this article like schoolchildren asked to edit the British Medical Journal for content, it will be, at best, of nominal use. Tfg 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a completely different matter. There are sources currently in the article, such as foldoc.org which appear to be commonly agreed as being reliable, which are (redundantly) referenced multiple times. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I was speaking to your call to link to a reputable lists, sources or databases; there is little agreement on what a reputable list, source or database is. I don't think foldoc.org is particularly reputable, for example: we don't know the methodology of its creation, nor has it been published in print format.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfg (talk • contribs)
Yes, I do see what you mean, but then I don't really see the problem with the redundancy either. If you can find a way of providing a useful, reasonably-direct link for each major source, then the aggregation is probably ok. But the link really needs to be of the kind that editors do not have to click the link and then go hunting for verification themselves: because that's not doing the job properly, really. -Splash - tk 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that this was also being discussed above. I think a link to a list is the best way to avoid the one-click problems you mention. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I'm being criticized for my insisting on reputable third party, verifiable sources for articles on Wikipedia, not an impossibly high standard for the rest of the encyclopedia. Note that it is in the guidelines, so I'm not sure that I've done anything wrong. I and other users have only asked a certain level of verifiability for the entries to this article (which even you yourself must admit was at least marginally a gigantic mess before the cleanup, even if information was lost in the process), and not even an impossible standard at that. Many of the sources you have provided allow any person to submit a definition (that AcronymFinder site, for example), and as such it would be inappropriate to use those. After a lengthy search on google for reliable sources for YHBT, I am inclined to just chill and say that I'm fine with the Jargon File reference. Even so, however, I have my concerns about its use in an encyclopedic medium, for example the above question regarding an entry I found. There should be an ability, if the use of this acronym is as wide as you seem to imply, to at least correlate some of the things on their, to their use in reality. A quick google will show how widely it's used, and all that I'm asking is that in the name of not having this page be a huge nexus for listcruft, we have a standard for what is or isn't appropriate to cite on this list. --ForbiddenWord 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the list

Here is the list of foldoc referenced slang that I propose get added to the list: Proposes additions. I still have some pruning to do, and i wanted to put this up before I started mass adding to the list. What do you think?--Rayc 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Impressed. It will take me a couple of days to work my way through that. -Splash - tk 15:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't cite dictionary.com. It just cites other sources, so you should cite those directly. Otherwise, just needs conversion to cite.php and it should be good. --Rory096 04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Noticed that half way through, and switched over to just Foldoc. :)--Rayc 05:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, RayC. I added all the ones cited from Foldoc and CNET (as an anonymous user). I need help removing the ones that are obviously not slang. (Splash, Rory, RayC, ForbiddenWord, this would be your cue to start nuking the ones like "EULA" and "OS") Dragix 08:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I gave it a blast. It's a bit subjective, though. I also took out a couple that, whilst in use on the Internet, are not slang as used there: they are slang whenever they're used, and have no different meaning online, like ASAP. -Splash - tk 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
So did you get them all, or should I still plan on adding the ones that we don't have (subject to review of course)?--Rayc 03:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he got them all. Apart from those that I removed due to copyright or whatever (a few from CNET) it looks like everything on your list is in here. -Splash - tk 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NEDM

I noticed that this keep re-appearing on the list. Does anybody have a reliable source for this? I could only find it in Acronymfinder: [11] /Jiiimbooh 00:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to just be a YTMND thing. They get a bit excited about themselves, and regularly call by various parts of Wikipedia to let everyone know. Until it appears in a source other than one which collects anything they're given, I'm not inclined to include it. -Splash - tk 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. Since this abbreviation is basicly (I suppose) only used on the YTMND site I guess it should be included in the YTMND article instead if it's that important to them. I'll leave a comment on the discussion page for that article. /Jiiimbooh 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NEDM still redirects here, if it is in another article can someone fix that? ImmortalDragon 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

It is not, unfortunately, acceptable to copy from other sources verbatim unless those sources are GFDL'd. The CNET glossary in particular is not GFDL'd, and the entry for tweedler is an infringing copy-paste of that entry. I'm going to have to go through this now and take out any further that are similarly unacceptable. -Splash - tk 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

False citatations

I've also just removed two terms that do not appear in the source they cite. We need to watch out for this. I don't understand why the exhortations to CITE RELIABLE SOURCES FOR ALL ENTRIES were removed; I think this was an unhelpful step. -Splash - tk 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To my previous: perhaps they weren't; maybe they never got added for some letters. Anyway, I just completed the alphabet and added those comments in to each letter. Whilst slightly cluttery, they do give the passing editors a lack of excuse and are helpful in that regards, even if people seem routinely unable to follow them (without just cheating...) -Splash - tk 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

FTW/4TW

The article "For the win" was made to redirect here, but the content of that article was lost in the process. What does FTW mean and what is its etimology?

  • "For the win" was presumably originally used to describe something that would lead to victory, such as "tanks for the win!", therefore tanks would come in and lead the team/person to victory. Now it's been blanketed as just anything that's really really good, like "bread FTW" or "money FTW". As for its origin, I'm not sure what game it's from, but I would venture to guess Counter-Strike or Battlefield 1942-- MacAddct1984  21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

goodbyes

  • G2G or GTG - Got 2/To Go.

I put it back in there. It is valid. If someone said thost letters (G.T.G.) in real life., they are using internet slang, not just abbreviating the words. Dragix 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In Real Life

The phrase is used in this very discussion page, twice in the article's definitions, has its own article with an "on the internet" section, and is never defined. I think it's Internet slang! Somegeek 19:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add all slang with separate articles onto the page a while back, all the pages with a "needsref" tag got removed. We need a ref for it, for both the list and the article--Rayc 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Webopedia lists but does not define it. It is listed as a reliable source. Can the Real life article be used as the definition if the "reliable refrence" doesn't define it? Somegeek 12:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't IRL already there? 71.99.22.212 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
IRL is, but the expansion is not. I think that "real life" used this way, abbreviated or not, is slang. It would certainly be confusing to a non-english speaker. Somegeek 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Well, I say this article is starting to look good. There's always room for improvement, but it's a lot better than what it used to be. I mean, all the common terms that most would like to see on there is already on there... So now we gotta find sources and cover everything that redirects to this page. Dragix 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes

Oh noes redirects here, but it isn't on the list. CameoAppearance 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lot of them do that, someone should go through and collect all of the redirects, sort out the one we don't have, and if we can't find a source for them, send them to Wikipedia:RfD
What exactly is required of a source for this list? Just a record of someone saying the phrase in question, or does there need to be more? If all you need is proof that people actually do say oh noes, I'm sure I could find a source or three. CameoAppearance 10:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
We have been having a problem with that. Orginally the list was gigantic, and any no name articles on any slang got redirected here (which produced a giant list of redirects). Then Urban dictionary, the main source of referencing for the list was declaired unsuitible because it allowed for user submissions, and the entire list was wiped and rebuild from the ground up. This left all the redirects coming in with out mention. If you can find a non-user contributed source, that will do.--Rayc 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, found a handful. One Questionable Content comic [12] in which a character says oh noes, as well as three uses on web forums and some random blog entry I found through Google. [13][14][15][16] CameoAppearance 12:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of sources, it is not really adequate to find usages, since usually that implies inferring meaning. It is necessary to find a source that says, as explicitly as possible, "X means Y". That source should be reliable, and either generally acceptable as authoritatively definitive, have some statement of why its material is reliable or cite its own sources. Generally, anything that relies in whole or part on user submissions without some serious vetting and checking and discerning of such submissions is no good, since it sets no higher standard than a Google search - or a Wikipedia article, and we all know how unreliable that is! -Splash - tk 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete List of Redirects

Teh pr0n (redirect page) Otfp (redirect page) Wafwot (redirect page) Whoamg (redirect page) Amirite (redirect page) IKWYM (redirect page) Itym (redirect page) Zorz (redirect page) BTDTGTTS (redirect page) OMGWTF (redirect page) Oh noes (redirect page) IOKIYAR (redirect page) WAPCE (redirect page) WABO (redirect page) TTUL (redirect page) Shadower (redirect page) A/s/l (redirect page) Dilligaf (redirect page) Omglolwtfbbq (redirect page) 4TW (redirect page) Nice Shot (redirect page) NS BZFlag Account suicide (redirect page) Nsh (redirect page) AFAICT (redirect page) YANAL (redirect page) 4649 (redirect page) A/S/L (redirect page) AFAIR (redirect page) FOAD (redirect page) OTOH (redirect page) GTFO (redirect page) Ttul (redirect page) SCNR (redirect page) Epeen (redirect page) IIRC (redirect page) Dragix 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GTFO

Is it notable enough? I see it added and removed back and forth from this page, and GTFO isn't mentioned on any of the websites listed as Reliable sources on this talk page.

Considering GTFO as NN, I have nominated GTFO for deletion: in RFD. Note that the time of the nomination, GTFO wasn't mentioned in the redirect's target article. Owoc 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

noslang.com

Is this site reliable? The definitions seem to be user-submitted. --Rory096 20:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I'm sure this is further up the page somewhere. -Splash - tk 20:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

UTFS

The sources given for this, whilst numerous are all of them unreliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for why. They are either user contributed, non-peer-reviewed or, more usually both. It needs to come from an authoritative source which has editorial control or peer review or be a de facto accepted good source, like FOLDOC. Freedictionary and acronymfinder are merely aggregation services that make no effort to check the content they report, and the sources they use are poor. -Splash - tk 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, actually, that particular acronymfinder one [17] appears to be one of their own, seeing as it doesn't link to the other sources they normally use. Might that be ok? -Splash - tk 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. I also hope that I'm using the talk page correctly. As you can see, I'm not particularly experienced. When I started trying to add this particular one, I confess that I didn't understand the reliable sources requirement (I looked at the page before a cleanup round, apparently, and saw many entries with no sources). With your second comment, are you saying that it would be acceptable with the acronymfinder as a sole reference, removing the ones from thefreedictionary.com and dictionary.com (which I now understand are both using acronymfinder as their reference)? On my first ref attempt, I had included an urbandictionary reference, which I now understand will never do as a reliable source. In the last ref attempt, I included an article from Linux.com as an attempt to show that this was a valid acronym. Are such articles not considered for this page? I ask not out of confrontation, but only out of ignorance. BlisteringSh33p 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Linux.com article didn't appear to actually give a meaning for the acronym (as I recall it linked to acronymfinder or one of the others, right?) so isn't a source for the meaning, imo. I think perhaps that this particular acronymfinder ref might be alright because it isn't just an aggregation from elsewhere. Their major weaknesses are that they do allow user submissions, and this usually renders a source unreliable (yes, Wikipedia too!) and they don't cite their higher authorities except for other, insufficient sources. Moreover, they don't allow profanity, resulting in "Use the Fine Search" which isn't the real usage of the acronym (as I believe judging from its insertions here; I've never used it myself but I don't forum loads). So AF isn't the greatest of sources really for a number of reasons. I wonder if anything better can be found? Does it appear in any of those listed right at the top of this talk page? (Yes, you're using it correctly, btw.) -Splash - tk 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the gentle response. The Linux.com article didn't give any definition or link to it at all. When I saw it there, I didn't know what it meant, sending me on my own search, which started this. I'm sorry, the only ones that I could find (that weren't circular) were the aforementioned UrbanDictionary and AF. I will listen to the more experienced to know if it is still acceptable under these circumstances or if letting an AF reference in would be a bad precedence. BlisteringSh33p 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reevaluation of Acronym Finder as a reliable source

Previously (and currently), Acronym Finder was/is considered an unreliable source. As seen above, it actually falls under the "possibly reliable" category. After researching Acronym Finder a little more closely, it may be worth considering it as a reliable source.

Previous arguments against acronymfinder.com consisted of "linking to commerce" (i.e. ads) and the problematic accepting of "user-submitted entries". The former is moot, as many of the "reliable sources" themselves link to commerce, while the latter argument (though more serious) is by acronymfinder.com's policy. The process by which acronyms are listed is described here. Noteworthy is the following:

"Acronym Finder adds more than 5,000 new acronym and abbreviation definitions to its database each month. Every term is reviewed for accuracy, verified from multiple sources, categorized, and edited by an experienced human editor."

While Acronym Finder does accept user-submitted acronyms, they all undergo a review process before actually being placed onto the site. Thus one cannot simply go to Acronym Finder, make up an acronym on the spot, see it appear within seconds, and then link back to it from Wikipedia as a source.

Any thoughts/comments? As far as I can tell Acronym Finder does not in any way violate Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Haricotvert 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See partially my comments in the section immediately above this. I would place one key restriction on AF under any kind of reliability metric: that where it is merely aggregating terms from other sources, it does not make those entries reliable unless they come from reliable sources themselves. It takes no effort to copy-and-paste someone else's work, and there's no evidence that any kind of discrimination is carried out on those they aggregate. For those they 'own' themselves, perhaps things are different, and this is the gensis of my comment above. To be honest, I do not believe that there are 5000 mentions of new words every month that appear in sources reliable enough to compile a reference source from, nor that such large-scale verification can be carried out unless AF has an extraordinarily large staff. At best, AF is a mediocre source. For those entries that they own themselves on terms that really do exist in widespread independent use, it will probably do until something better is found at which time I'd be inclined to remove the AF citation in favour of it. If this turns out to admit a whole shed-load of junk to the article we will naturally have to re-evaluate that kind of thinking. Reliable is as reliable does. -Splash - tk 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In that respect, what keeps any other website from aggregating its own information from various sources that are themselves unreliable? What stops a "reliable source" (according to the list above) like Computer Hope from doing exactly what you suggest? In fact, I would go so far as to say Computer Hope could not have amassed a jargon dictionary without the assistance of outside sources. But humor me. For the sake of argument, let's say that magically the entire staff of Computer Hope pooled their collective minds together to come up with every computer-related acronym they could think of. Unfortunately, as they came directly out of the minds of individuals and thus are prone to misinterpretation and misremembering, would not those entries be equally innacurate? Perhaps then they did not even verify their own sources, so how much better are they? They don't cite where they got their definitions from. They don't even claim that they took their definitions from reliable sources. As much as you seem to dislike or discredit Acronym Finder, AF at least claims that it verifies from multiple sources before adding something to the actual reference. And yes, the numbers they give appear dubious, but the wording of the sentence is ambiguous in its own right. I would not be surprised if they meant they receive 5000 submissions/month (which would be "added to the database"), but certainly they do not accept all of them. I mean, what does it take? Should I go to AF and submit my own bogus acronym to see if I can get it to go through? Honestly, if you're going to use the above arguments against AF, you're taking down other "reliable" sources with it. Haricotvert 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing on several fronts at once. Do you want AF to be reliable, or Computer Hope (CH) to be unreliable? Or AF to be as unreliable as CH, or CH as reliable as AF? Or all sources to be no more reliable than AF, or all sources to be worse than AF unless AF is better than one of them? One thing at a time!
The point is not the use of external sources; that is precisely the point of building a well-referenced article here, and I would expect any provider of such things to use external sources, whether they are a printed dictionary, or an online collection. Your example of collective mindpower misses the point. If that was how any source was constructed, it would be quite thoroughly useless. It is basically how Urban Dictionary is created. A good dictionary (e.g. the OED) uses outside sources extensively: a word's presence there is conditioned upon it appearing elsewhere a number of times. The question is, are the sources it uses reliable, and has it applied any judgement to them? Merely incorporating freedictionary and whatever the other one is doesn't require any editorial control, and since AF is adding 5000 entries a month they are failing to exercise any. (I don't see where I have to parse the word "added" into the word "received". That's just not what it says.)
Some sources a de facto reliable, such as the OED, such as something published by the UK Government, something published on a page for parents by Microsoft. All of them have a commercial or political reputation at stake, which they successfully uphold. AF has none of these imperatives at nearly that level. Does Computer Hope? Well, perhaps not, but they are exercising clear control over their entries as evidenced by the restricted subset of all possible latin character combinations that they display, and their strong focus on technologically valid acronyms that are in wide use in much technical literature. The internet acronyms are more-or-less a "bonus" to their main activity. Very importantly, they do not accept user submissions of meanings, and this really is the key failing of AF, and those like it and those that rely on it. CH only accepts the word itself, implying that they must have to go and do whatever it is they do before they add it. AF does not appear to exercise more than a sliver of self-control in their 5000 entries a month (again, I disagree that the word "add" is a typo for "receive" or is at all hard to understand), and they invite full definitions for them for their users.
It is not in the least reasonable to attempt to apply the self-same judgements to all possible sources, which is what you'd have me do. I view Webster-Merriam as infinitely better than AF, CH and all the rest of them for example, for reasons I hope I don't need to go into. Reliable is as reliable does.
No, you should not conduct original research with respect to a Wikipedia article.
And anyway, this is all pretty academic considering that I commented twice or more now that for definitions they "own" they will probably do until something better is found. WP:RS and WP:V urge multiple reliable sources where possible, after all. As I said, if this results in a flood of bollocks into the article (as evidenced typically by AF being the only source with some good proportion of the entries in question, or the entries being plainly frivolous) then I'd rethink my thinking. Enough of the long replies. I've said everything I have to say. -Splash - tk 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand many of my comments, so let me clarify:
First, I was not arguing for the "collective mindpower" to be acceptable to Wikipedia standards - clearly it is not, and I am not advocating it. Perhaps it is a difference of opinion of what constitutes reliable: even though anyone can submit anything (i.e. AF), if that submission goes through independent verification or peer-review, I find that to be more reliable than an entity like Urban Dictionary, which has essentially no verification or review (I'm sure you're inclined to agree). Similarily, I agree that the OED, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft, and whatever else are a cut above in terms of "reliability" than AF. For illustrative reasons, I used the example of Computer Hope to show that whether or not it is using its staff's "collective mindpower" behind its definitions hardly matters - if indeed all its definitions come from external sources (as a "reliable" source would), why do they not 1. mention that they do, and 2. show what those sources are? Thus, as you say, reliable is as reliable does. And no, I am not arguing that Computer Hope should necessarily be stricken from the "reliable sources" list, but it certainly would be a point necessary to consider based on the corollary of "reliability." Perhaps this is an issue of confusing "credibility" with "reliability," as to you Computer Hope is more "credible" than AF though not necessarily any more "reliable/verifiable." It certainly is hard to tell based on the limited information both entities provide.
Second, I have no intention of conducting "original research." The comment of "trying to pass a bogus acronym through Acronym Finder" (assuming this is what you meant as "original research") was a facetious remark to suggest that if that's what it takes to determine whether or not Acronym Finder actually screens its submissions, then so be it. I find it ironic that a site like AF, though only "mildly" reliable, at least makes direct claims that it verifies its submissions, which are discounted because you don't think it's possible. Fair enough, let's say that the "About" page hasn't been updated in several years. It has been around since 1998, after all. I don't doubt that at one point the figures for submissions were that high, especially if the database was at one point "empty".
You are right that this is becoming a bit of an academic debate. In my opinion, this is a point upon which many of Wikipedia's admins (such as yourself) fervently cling to, as it is their job, and I acknowledge the need for (ideally) reliable & credible & verifiable sources. But then the issue is not as clear cut as it appears, and then things fall apart. Haricotvert 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

QFE

Will this be added at all? QFE is 'quoted for emphasis,' and since QFT is there, I think it should also be allowed. This is also often used, so I imagine it would be smart to include it. But, of course, I don't know where I can find a reliable source for it, though. Will respond soon. EdBoy 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite Errors?

Hmm, I saw an error beside `AFAICT` about a cite error, which I attempted to correct by adding a missing quotation mark for (ref name="What Is AFAICT"). (Please look at the history). But it seems like I caused even more errors at the bottom of the page, under references. If anyone can fix it, please do, and please let me know how to resolve the problem. Thanks,

Problem with Sources, slang, & “QQ more noob”

How do you find a source, or better yet a verifiable source for jargon and slang? By the very definition of jargon and slang, they are babble, unintelligent, meaningless or incoherent words or phrases at times peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group.[18] As such, some of them are only used by people that are either young (video games) or would rather not have people know exactly what they are trying to say (hackers). You won’t find very reliable references for most of these, even if they are common, because of that reason. Not to mention that the reputable “internet jargon/slang” lists are often made by companies like Microsoft which will shy away from putting insulting jargon on their lists because they would deem it potentially controversial.

Another reason it will be hard to find, especially in the dictionary sites, is slang often is a phrase, such as “hit the road”. It’s slang, you aren’t going to actually hit the road. Saying the word hit by itself isn’t slang, nor is the word road; but when said as a phrase it becomes slang. Or “what’s your no good?” & “How’s it hanging?” It’s a slang greeting phrase; you could look up each particular word and each word has it’s on meaning, but when put together in that order, it becomes slang.

Take for instance, “QQ more noob” which I have noticed removed from this page at least once, if not more. I’ve been using this phrase or variations of it for going on 5 years now (with/without spacing; various spellings of noob & more; etc). If you go into almost any game chat forum and use QQ, at least a few people if not more will know what you are talking about. You even find it on forums that have nothing to do with gaming; as gamers are everywhere, like Canadians, they are living among you! (Canadian Bacon j/k)

  • World of Warcraft example: [19][20][21] Death & Taxes (Major WoW Guild) [22]
  • City of Heros example: [23]
  • DAoC: [24][25]
  • DAoC GERMAN site: [26] - shows use in other languages.
  • Random site: [27] Xbox Forum [28]Netscape postboard (nothing to do with gaming): [29]
  • Wikipedia emoticon ref: [30]

Note, the different games, different forums, different servers. This isn’t original research, it’s something that is all over the place, and should be added to the list of Jargon/Slang. As should any other term that is common use; but hasn’t made it to Webster’s yet, and probably never will. If there is a verifiable source, it’s “google search”; when you get page after page of hit, for multiple games, forums, and countries, I would say that’s a good indicator that it’s in common use.

If you are going to make a list of slang/jargon then you are not going to be able to have a decent list unless you take some sources that are not corporate affiliate or dictionary. Mefanch 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue on this page is that if standards are relaxed, the page is often flooded with a deluge of unreliable sources. Please review the standards as set out at WP:RS. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The standard is verifiability from reliable sources, not truth. -Splash - tk 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Quoted For Truth" links here but is not listed

The page Quoted For Truth links to this page but isn't listed on it. I'd add it but you all seem to be in quite the debate about what to add and what not, so if it's not to be added then the redirect needs to be removed (or probably the entire page, which is (as far as I know) only linked to from the QFT disambiguation page). --Oreckel 02:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated sections

Why are there two different categories for "W"? Tudwell 13:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

DFTT

DFTT redirects here but isn't listed. I read this as Don't Feed the Trolls. Anyone got an alternative? I think it should be in main list since Troll(er) is. Greenlaner 17:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that all the D's should be missing. Is some vandalism going on here? DIAF redirects here but there is no entry. Gorman 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the entries that have redirects here have been removed from this page in the absence of a reliable source to cite. DIAF is one that I have deleted several times, because the only source provided has been Urbandictionary, which is obviously not a [[WP:RS|reliable source. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

DMY

DMY redirects here, but its not even on the list. Besides, does anyone know what it even means?


i think it means um... do my ylaundry? lol


Ugly

This article is a disgrace to wikipedia. It is full of slang that I have NEVER heard and can't confirm, it is missing jargon that is common (DIAF/QQ/ect) and overall, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Protect this page and put a team together to make the list with sources or delete this. No clue how this garbage survived the delete vote. There must be 20 redirects here that don't even have mention. 67.11.140.20 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i know its fugly (hey, thats another slang!) Bloodpack 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That is actually not the case for the vast majority of the terms in the list, which each have at least 1 source that is reliable (hopefully) attached to them. I'd encourage you to either a)seek out a reliable source or, failing that, b)remove unsourced entries. -Splash - tk 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Added

eh, i just added a few words to the list. and guy up there ^^ this list doesnt suck, and it belongs on wikipedia. If you want extremely boring to read info with like, half the info wikipedia does, buy an actual encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yo mama 1.0 (talk • contribs)

sign your post to show decency and etiquette Bloodpack 08:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Legend to the contrary, Wikipedia is an actual encyclopedia. Theshibboleth 22:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, take a look at Wikipedia:Welcome and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for info on all that. --h2g2bob 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

kthxbye

Totaly should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.165.208 (talk • contribs)

Hello. Don't forget you can edit wikipedia and add this yourself. On this page it is especially important to reference sources for where you can find the word - eg: Foldoc or Urban Dictionary. --h2g2bob 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

is this a real slang word

ROFLMAOCOPTERBBQWTFPANCAKES - ? Is this a real slang word or is it a joke? It should be deleted if it is the latter.

Sfrostee 10/19/06----

I wondered a similar thing. I'd say OMGWTFBBQ (which redirects to Internet Slang) is appropriate, but "ROFLMAOCOPTERBBQWTFPANCAKES" while amusing doesn't seem appropriate. What do others think? P996911turbo 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be a portmanteau of ROFL + MAO + COPTER + BBQ + WTF + PANCAKES ;-) But it seems to have limited to no circulation (0 google hits) --h2g2bob 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

smh?

what does it mean? ive seen it thrown around in many chat rooms.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.210.238 (talk • contribs) .

The Urban Dictionary lists it as 'shake my head' [31] -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Two of the words have ok discriptions but do not conform to what they actually mean.

NooB - This is diffrerent from Newb (or Newbie) as Newb means a new player/user of something and they do not know the correct way to go arround things and are willing to learn. A Noob is in ways an insult that shows that one is new but does not care of the rules and wants things to happen there own way they do not want to learn and are vile and disgusting and causes minor anoyances to people. An example of a newb would say somthing like "Hello, may I ask how I can get some gold?" and they only ask once or twice on the other hand a Noob would be more like "GIME GOLD PLZPLZPLZPLZPLZPLZPLZPLZ!!!!!!!!! PLZ PLZ PLZ PLZ PLZ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOWNOW NOW!!!!!!!" and spam that same message over and over untill they get what they want. I think what im trying to say is Newbs are mature players/users that are new to something and want to learn whilst a noob is a user/player thats more like a child. And in real life that often is the truth cause younger users/players tend to be more selfish than more mature users/players as it is human nature. These 2 words are often miss used these days by 'real/true' NooBs because they dont know the difference between the two and is not willing to learn they also only use it as an insult. They do not know the difference between Ignorence and Stupidity. Those two words meanings will not be disgussed here but ill say ignorence is not an insult but stupidity is.

To PWN/PWNED - To defeat a player is a way to explane this word however it does not show the caliber it is on. To win or defeat can be considerd as owning/pwning a player but the words emotion depicts total domination to the opponent and to win in a way that other players will think that you have just done superior kill/win than that of an avrage kill. Things that would come as supprising. An example would be if you where playing a first person shooter. If you run torwards another human player and knife (melee) them in the neck and cause an instant kill that would be considered a type of pwn. but if you ran up to a 2 or more and did the same thing to all of them without dieing it is considered a good/actuall pwn as both are difficult but the 2nd example is alot more difficult. To be able to do such stunts without dieing in a game of competivness and win would mean that you PWN/Have PWNED.

Yes that was what I had to say (Mind you these are what I have picked up from different situations in many different games/forums etc and it is also in my opinion but I would hope that you would look deeper in these 2 words cause of the difference in the information will make a big difference when you use such words.)

IONO

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IONO redirects to this list, but IONO is not on the list. I don't know what it means or I'd add it.

FOAD also redirects here from links elsewhere in wikipedia, yet the definition isn't here. (And I don't know what it means...)
Unless a reliable source can be found for the above terms, they cannot be included here. If it is the case that no reliable sources can be found, I suggest you use the proposed deletion process to remove the redirects. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW I've found other phrases which redirect to this page, but aren't on it. It's as if someone creates the redirect, then adds the phrase here (with an arguably bum reference like Urbandictionary.com, or worse no reference), we revert it, but meanwhile a new redirect page remains needing CsD. This page is a nightmare, it seems to attract numerous additions which are the subject for contention. Yuck. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed all the f*** to fuck

Per WP:Profanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swalot (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

<g>

I read it very often. I think it stands for glare [smile] --Ulisse0 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Urbandictionary calls it "grin".[32] --h2g2bob 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong.. --Ulisse0 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember it as early as 1982 for (grin). As in I'm really working hard here, playing Rogue <G>. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What about <sg> 'sarcastic grin'?... probably extinct as wellOrgan grinder82 15:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Should certain phrases in this article should be labelled as a different genre of leet?

Because there is a significant difference between leet phrases used by gamers and those used in... less than reputable chat room situations, this article should either separate these two types of abbreviations or at least mention the contrast between the two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathstop (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

DOA

DOA isn't Internet slang. It's a phrase used by the police when communicating over radio. Djupi 23:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

DOA as police/paramedic slang refers to a person who is dead on arrival. DOA as Internet slang refers to hardware that has never worked.
Dead On Arrival = Broken Upon Delivery --Onorem 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keyboard commands?

A list of useful keyboard commands is barely 'Internet slang', and anyways, they vary from OS to OS, do they not? Especially as the section was unsourced (meaning not providing a source as to why they fit on this list...) I removed them. Does anyone disagree with me doing that? J Milburn 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, if you click on the links above, it doesn't look like the current version has been transwikied. Pan Dan 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have to agree. One link is empty and the other leads to a list with some of the same entries, but obviously not based on this page, unless they decided to throw out all the sources and go just with urbandictionary. </shudder> --Onorem 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.