Template:Did you know nominations/National Replacement Character Set
- 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 Allen3 talk 14:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
National Replacement Character Set
[edit]- ... that DEC's National Replacement Character Set system built character sets on the fly so they didn't have to make different terminals for different countries?
- Reviewed: Frederick Henry Rich
Created/expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 10:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC).
- The article is new, it has about 3,500 characters, which is above the 1,500 minimum. I'm a little worried about the sourcing, since the majority od the article is sourced with one reference. Also don't forget to check another DYK before this one goes.--Retrohead (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Maury, but I'm reluctant to pass this nominee. Having the entire article sourced with one ref might contain copyright violations. I see the source is published by the Digital Equipment Corporation, the company that launched the character set, which is primary sourcing.--Retrohead (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm, there is more than one ref. One is entirely independent and clearly illustrates the use of the concept. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The article is new, it has about 3,500 characters, which is above the 1,500 minimum. I'm a little worried about the sourcing, since the majority od the article is sourced with one reference. Also don't forget to check another DYK before this one goes.--Retrohead (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Expanding a bit:
- Using a single source certainly doesn't imply any sort of copyvio, any more than using multiple sources protect against it. Copyvio is copyvio, and has to be checked independently of the number of source of the cites. I assure you, there is no copyvio in this article, although you're free to check for yourself (all the refs are clickable).
- Primary sourcing isn't what you seem to suggest here. Primary sourcing, which redirs to OR, generally refers to cites that are published by non-reputable sources. I cannot cite a web page I put up on why UFOs are real, nor a book published at a mill. You can, for instance, use Romeo and Juliet as a reference for Romeo and Juliet.
...but... You can't use Romeo and Juliet to demonstrate NOTE for Romeo and Juliet. That requires a second source. I have one here so it doesn't apply, but more generally, what does one do? This system was used in millions of terminals around the world, it meets NOTE by that definition. But it doesn't demonstrate it. What does? Would ad advertisement in a magazine do it? That seems circular, right? Any comments?
- My worry was whether the topic is well researched. Second thing are the capitalized words, that might appear mystic to the reader who's not into the subject. Can you respond to these before I pass the nom?--Retrohead (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I think I missed an edit in here, which capitalized terms? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
