Template:Did you know nominations/Digiday


 * 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) 06:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiday

 * ... that in 2014, online magazine Digiday created "What the Fuck is my Twitter Bio?", a site that generates profanity-laced Twitter bios? Source: "This month, digital media marketing publication Digiday worked up a similar, if significantly more profane, version called "What the F--- is my Twitter Bio?". (Fair warning: Lots of profanity. As if the name didn't give that away.)"
 * Reviewed: Effie Owuor

Moved to mainspace by BD2412 (talk) and Feminist (talk). Nominated by Feminist (talk) at 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New (moved from mainspace), in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, neutral ("Description" quotes positive descriptions, but is contained to one paragraph), no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. &, does the name of the site, as conceived by Digiday, actually include the three dashes? From the sources and the URL it appears not to. Unless Digiday itself censored it—which it doesn't appear to have—it should not be censored here. Also, not a DYK issue, but the first sentence in the second paragraph in "Description" should really be chopped into two. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was following the style used in the CNN article. The Daily Dot article spelled out "What the Fuck", but censored or not, wouldn't it seems a bit gratuitous to put an "F" word on the Main Page? bd2412  T 13:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Fuck" per WP:NOTCENSORED. Another solution would be to avoid having the name of the website in the hook. ALT1: ... that in 2014, online magazine Digiday created a site that generates profanity-laced Twitter bios? feminist (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * &, I was about to approve both and let the promoter decide which hook to use, but looking again at it, it appears that while the website is "profane," the actual twitter bios are not. The point seems to be to generate trite bios of the kind that clearly try too hard (e.g., "ideation gnome, serial coach, ad tech nerd. knitter"), but I didn't see any profanity in any of them. So I struck ALT1, and the article should be adjusted accordingly. ALT0 could just have "profanity-laced" removed, or you could suggest other ALTs. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that as a hook that itself avoids profanity. We just closed a fairly long debate about a hook proposing to include the "N" word, and although racial slurs are more directly offensive, I would like to avoid the appearance that DYK is throwing profanity into hooks for the sake of generating a shock, rather then intrigue about the subject. bd2412  T 14:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense (I actually came along for the end of that discussion). How about:
 * ALT2: ... that thanks to Digiday, your Twitter bio could be "Talent acquisition necromancer, jelly healer, chrome yoda. Sommelier in the making."?
 * This quotation could be added to the article as an example (sourced to the website), although I think making the name of the site into an external link would be sufficient. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the article text to "generates random absurd Twitter bios followed by profanity-laced commentary", which accurately sums up what the website generates. I think that would also be fine as language for a hook. bd2412  T 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , sounds good, although another reviewer is needed to approve ALT2 and ALT3.
 * ALT3: ... that a website run by Digiday generates random absurd Twitter bios followed by profanity-laced commentary?

New reviewer needed to check ALT2 and ALT3. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Reviewing ALT3 (as I don't see the quotes from ALT2 in either of the two inline references, although I may simply be missing something there): Size and date check out; article appears to be appropriately within policy, and Earwig check indicates copyplag shouldn't be a concern; hook sourced and the references support it. This should now, I believe, be good to go. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I gather that the quote from ALT2 is a bio randomly generated by the proposer. Basically, if you click the link, it creates a new one every time. For some reason, this is popular. bd2412  T 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason can't possibly be fathomed! And that's fair, but unfortunatly, impossible to properly verify. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else that needs to be done for this nomination to go forward? bd2412  T 15:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't; ALT3 was the one I approved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)