Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Integer BASIC

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Integer BASIC

(
)
  • Reviewed: Reema Juffali
  • Comment: Series of edits over two weeks just hit 5x according to DKY Check. Lots of ALTs because, well, it's Woz, there's always lots of possibilities! Personally, I think "Woz" should be "the Great and Mighty Woz", but I doubt the nebbishes would allow it; so let's put it on one and see what happens. Question: lots of images of Integer BASIC being run, could any of them possibly be used?

5x expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

  • I don't wish to be such a party pooper on a fine expansion, but two weeks is outside of the timeframe to 5x expand, although I seem to recall on previous occasions we have turned a blind eye to that when the work has been particularly good. Yoninah, can you remind me what the generally accepted procedure is here? Also, I know what "The Great And Powerful Woz" is referring to, but not everyone will, so that'll need a source. Similarly, the prose jumps between "Woz" and "Wozniak"; I think for an encyclopedia we should go with the latter as "Woz" sounds too much like jargon for those "in the know". I personally like the main hook the best, it's the most quirky and the most interesting to a non-developer, but ALT1 works for me as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait, what? Had I any idea that was the rule, I would have simply edited all the changes in Smultron and uploaded in a single go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: hi, the rule is 7 days. I don't have time to check whether it's really a 5x expansion, but it looks like the nominator's work started on February 21, 11 days before nominating, which is only 4 days late. You could IAR if you want. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed, since previous one still has not returned after 17 days. A four-day IAR is certainly not beyond the pale here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination was late. Not clear that this was a 5x expansion. I suggest going for a GA nomination. --evrik (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • evrik, this is quite clearly a more than 5x expansion, with the prose characters at 3712 prior to expansion (the previous edit was from October 2, 2019, and the article hasn't previously been above 4000 prose characters except for a few minutes in 2018 and a more extended period in 2016, both well outside what can be considered, even though DYKcheck picks up on it), and is 20,352 now (and was over 20,000 the day it was nominated). To be clear here, if you reinstate your rejection, it would be solely on the basis of those four days. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I went and looked at the character counts myself. Which version are you using? Also, what do you consider the day it was complete? --evrik (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • evrik, DYKcheck on this October 2019 version (the last before the expansion began on February 21): 3712 prose characters, meaning that a 5x expansion would require at least 18,560 prose characters. DYKcheck on this March 3 version (at 17:30 (UTC), 15 minutes prior to nomination): 20,056 prose characters. So at the moment it was nominated on March 3, it was more than 5x expanded with the edits that started on February 21. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Impressive expansion. So it was a few days late--big deal. I picked ALT 5, cause I think it's the most accessible and the juiciest. Thanks to BlueMoonset for counting beans. Taking into account the valid comment by User:Ritchie333 about "Woz", I changed those "Woz"s in the article to "Wozniak" because a. it was not very encyclopedic and b. not done consistently. The prose is fine, I didn't see any plagiarism in the spot checks I made, the hook and all the other stuff I looked at were verified. So, off we go. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: @Epicgenius: @Drmies: @BlueMoonset: @Evrik: @BlueMoonset: @Maury Markowitz: @Ritchie333: reopening this, as there are quite a few bits in the article that are uncited, including points in the lead such as the comment about substrings and Fortran 77. Once those are cited and approved, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • True--I looked at a few of the "array" issues and could not resolve them within the article. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I had totally forgotten about this nearly 2-month-old nom. I only received a ping now for some reason, although it appears it was posted 9 days ago. The cites-needed are already cited (in the Strings section) and the remaining tag on the code sample doesn't need a cite because its a statement of fact. I strongly argue that the hook should be "Woz" because that's what he calls himself and who are we to argue? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: what do you think on these points? I guess it's true that must as a film summary can be verified by watching the film, the code snippet could be "verified" by running it on an actual machine and observing the results noted in the paragraph, so I'd be inclined to allow that one. As for "Woz", it doesn't sound very encyclopedic to say that, even if it was a self-used nickname, but Ire'll leave that decision up to Drmies. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, I do not think that this is very much like a plot summary, not at all. However, if you are convinced by the argument, go for it. As for "Woz"--no, I think that is silly and confusing. At best it's a sort of inside joke, and I think I noted earlier that in the article it was used somewhat haphazardly anyway (plus, "strongly argue"--I don't see an argument here at all). But, if you want to move this along based on Maury Markowitz's argument, that's fine with me. The article is long and clean enough for my taste. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: aside from the code sample, which might just be OK, there are still two other outstanding cites needed tags. You said they were already cited in the strings section but I'm not seeing how that works. They appear to be statements not included anywhere else. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Again missing ping until BM's. I simply removed the text, although I'm not sure why I had to be the one to do that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

- restoring tick, based on the above discussion. It would be preferable if the code sample were cited, but I'll let that one pass. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Integer_BASIC&oldid=1022213506"