This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process or it was formerly listed at Requested articles.Requested articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Requested articlesTemplate:WikiProject Requested articlesRequested
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
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.
I've read the article and I think it's okay. But could you maybe find a better source than this one for the description of Zalgo text as "Lovecraftian"? (I'm asking myself whether the source is sufficient...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: I think I can tick this one anyway but there is another small problem. It seems to me that the opening sentence of the article is somewhat unclear. It can be understood as that Zalgo text is made by "combining several letters". It should be made clear that there are so-called combining characters which are intended to combine with the letter that comes immediately before them and that is how Zalgo text is made. My attempt at clarification is even more unclear than your original version, but I hope you will be able to come up with something better. (I will be out of Wikipedia until Monday or Tuesday, but I will come back and tick this nomination.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I will think about it tomorrow. (Actually, I returned to Wikipedia 9 days ago and saw that nothing much changed and thought, "Okay, I will rewrite the opening sentence myself." And I still haven't got to it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that even John M Wolfson misunderstood the definition of "Zalgo text" [1]. Zalgo text isn't an "act of combining characters". The simplest solution would probably be to change "combining characters" to "so-called 'combining characters'". --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is new enough and long enough. Both hooks are properly sourced and are good to go. (I don't have a preference for the hook to be used, however the first one sounds more intriguing.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
StackOverflow regex parsing of HTML
You'd need a reference for it, but I'd be surprised if this weren't relevant to the development and uptake of Zalgo text. At the moment the history rather jumps from 2004 to 2020. › Morteetalk03:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zalgo text direct example
Since an IP editor added an actual string of Zalgo text to the article with this edit, I'm wondering if it's worthwhile keeping it. It probably violates MOS:NOSYMBOLS for accessibility reasons / potentially breaking the site. I don't think having just images of Zalgo text is a perfect replacement either, since it's the encoding of the text itself that's important. I feel silly, but I'm wondering if this is a rare case for WP:IAR. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting thought. I value both IAR and accessibility as highest virtues. What I'd lean towards here is having an actual screen reader user check out the article and see if it breaks it. Vaticidalprophet03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]