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: rejected by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Significant article issues mean the nomination cannot be approved at this time. The nominator has made a comment below suggesting they are fine with the nomination being closed.
Created by
DiplomatTesterMan (
talk). Self-nominated at 11:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC).
Kautilya3, do these hooks seem ok? Accurate?
DTM (
talk) 11:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic but there are significant issues. These include:
WP:SOAP and
WP:NPOV. As Wikipedia would be affected, we have a
WP:COI and so promoting the issue on our main page might be considered improper.
The proposed regulations are a draft which is still subject to change but
WP:DYKHOOK states "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". For example, here's a
recent source that says "Only the big social media firms may face tougher online content regulation norms". Does that include Wikipedia? It's not clear and won't be final until the draft becomes law.
The proposed regulations are framed as an amendment to the law of 2011 but we don't seem to have an article about that such as
Intermediary Guidelines. It would better to work on what's already law and add a section about the proposed amendments. That way, there's more stability and context.
A QPQ still seems needed but that's a comparatively minor issue. Best to settle the major issues first.
Andrew Thank you for the thorough review and also pointing out that "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". I overlooked this. I think I will go ahead and see how to work on
Intermediary Guidelines, where the content of this article will be better suited; or maybe if they better fit into the main
Information Technology Act, 2000 article.
Accordingly I guess this DYK can be closed right?
DTM (
talk) 09:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
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: rejected by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Significant article issues mean the nomination cannot be approved at this time. The nominator has made a comment below suggesting they are fine with the nomination being closed.
Created by
DiplomatTesterMan (
talk). Self-nominated at 11:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC).
Kautilya3, do these hooks seem ok? Accurate?
DTM (
talk) 11:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic but there are significant issues. These include:
WP:SOAP and
WP:NPOV. As Wikipedia would be affected, we have a
WP:COI and so promoting the issue on our main page might be considered improper.
The proposed regulations are a draft which is still subject to change but
WP:DYKHOOK states "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". For example, here's a
recent source that says "Only the big social media firms may face tougher online content regulation norms". Does that include Wikipedia? It's not clear and won't be final until the draft becomes law.
The proposed regulations are framed as an amendment to the law of 2011 but we don't seem to have an article about that such as
Intermediary Guidelines. It would better to work on what's already law and add a section about the proposed amendments. That way, there's more stability and context.
A QPQ still seems needed but that's a comparatively minor issue. Best to settle the major issues first.
Andrew Thank you for the thorough review and also pointing out that "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". I overlooked this. I think I will go ahead and see how to work on
Intermediary Guidelines, where the content of this article will be better suited; or maybe if they better fit into the main
Information Technology Act, 2000 article.
Accordingly I guess this DYK can be closed right?
DTM (
talk) 09:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)