Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ROT13

ROT13

Interesting, well written. Image? -- Fredrik | talk 16:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 'Support - Interesting. Well written. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. , just needs a picture. Zerbey 18:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Has an excellent diagram now. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That'll work :) Zerbey 15:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Why? It doesn't really seem like a picture sort of article. Pcb21| Pete 08:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) There are no references. 2) The article is a bit short. I can't think of a lot to add, but a better description of the cryptanalysis is needed. There is nothing said about frequency analysis which is needed to break the encoding. 3) As for the image: I don't think one is required here, but adding one would be good. Jeronimo 11:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As I said above, now has a diagram. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) There are inline references, and some of the external links also serve; I've now added a reference to the Jargon file definition. Do you think there's an obvious need for more? 2) I've added a paragraph to show how ROT13 could be easily broken if used as encryption using frequency analysis or pattern words. Does this suffice? — Matt 13:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work, Matt! Fredrik | talk 14:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work indeed - support. Jeronimo 19:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a good article — there's a lot more about the topic there than I even realized existed. A picture would be nice, but not crucial, in my opinion. Factitious 07:19, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support'. A picture is not needed here, imnsho. Anárion 08:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, I find it very interesting but it needs references for my support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 09:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 15:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support once a couple more good references are added cleaned up. The new diagram is great to represent the topic and explain it. Maybe it should even be moved up though. The references need to be one consistent style. - Taxman 14:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose that you could you suggest the type of references that are needed — citing specific sources for certain facts, or general references? — Matt 15:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone add a "reference" to a joke paper about how ROT13 was especially good if applied twice, and at least one user changed their decision to support after this reference (along with a jargon file one) was added. Sometimes it seems like people don't care what the content of an article is, so long as it "ticks all the boxes" like "has an image", "has references", "has a certain length first paragraph". Pcb21| Pete 15:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I added these references. The reference to a joke paper was fine because it was referred to from the text in a section about the use of ROT26 as a joke — literally a reference, as opposed to further reading; it's a useful example of a certain social aspect of the topic. It's true, of course, that the line between "References", "External links", "Sources" and "Further reading" gets pretty blurred sometimes on WP. The Jargon file reference is more of a "Sources", I guess. — Matt 16:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I didn't qualify it because it could use any references that would verify the facts in the article. Specifically a reference that detailed the frequency analysis info would be helpful. Also the references, external links and citation in general needs to be cleaned up. There are 3 in article external links that appear to be intended as footnotes that get the standard external link numbering [1], etc. Then there is a single superscripted footnote with inconsistent numbering to the external links. The inline external link citations are not listed in the references or external links sections. Were all of the external links in the external links section used as references or are they just there for additional information for the reader? One syle should be chosen for citation, for ex. either inline, consistently numbered external links (also listed in the references/external links section), or more like MLA style with (author, year) inline and the full citation at the end. I can work on some of that, but those familiar with the subject will need to provide the additional quality references. - Taxman 17:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • For frequency analysis, I've added a couple of books to the frequency analysis article; I think they'd be a little too off-topic in this article. — Matt 13:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 16:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote yet. This is a good article, I'd just like a little bit of an explanation on the Unix command. Is there a way for laymen to understand its syntax? The article has improved with the new picture and the formatting of the tables. I'd be happy to support as soon as I can get some information verified. Support[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 20:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• V nz pbaprearq gung srnghevat guvf rapelcgvba flfgrz pbhyq pbafgvghgr n oernpu bs angvbany naq vagreangvbany frphevgl. Jrer gur EBG13 frphevgl cebgbpny gb snyy vagb gur jebat unaqf, rnpu naq rirel fvatyr wbxr ba gur Hfrarg jbhyq fhqqrayl orpbzr genafcnerag gb bhe rarzvrf... naq gura jurer jbhyq jr or? Arireguryrff, V ibgr Fhccbeg. shap(gnyx) 19:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, func, for you support. Now, if anyone else thinks it would be funny to write their comment in ROT13, I swear, things will get very nasty. :) JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Another Fhccbeg, err, 'Support here. *Kicks himself for not thinking of that joke first* Kiand 20:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I really like the table and the reversals. --Alex Krupp 04:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Still can't understand the memfrob bit, but everything else dealt with. jguk 22:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object It's difficult for me as a layman unfamiliar with computing technology to understand bits of this. But it's nearly there. If I have time I get round to it, I'll amend the article myself to deal with my objection. Main points of confusion/suggested improvements are:

  1. Move the explanation that ROT-13 stands for 'rotate by 13 places' to the lead section. The 'description' section would then need a slight tweak to avoid duplication;
  2. Needs a brief explanation of what 'eBook copy protection systems' are;
  3. I can't believe many (non-computing bods) are familiar with what 'ASCII' is. A brief (one sentence, say) explanation would be helpful';
  4. I have absolutely no idea what the 'memfrob()' section is about. It should either be removed or reworded so a layman can understand it;
  5. It would be helpful if the lookup table included 'Description' could also be included in the Trivia section.
  6. The word 'newbies' in the Trivia section is slang. Whilst I believe a not too formal style is appropriate for many articles, I don't think articles should use slang either.

jguk 17:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • I've tried to address some of these. 1) Done. 2) I've added "Ebooks (books available in digital or electronic format) sometimes include technical measures to enforce copyright." 3) I've added "Instead of using the sequence A-Z as the alphabet, ROT47 uses a larger alphabet, derived from a common character encoding known as ASCII." 4) I've reworded this slightly. I think that a layperson would probably have to follow the links to GNU C library byte, XOR, binary to understand this fully, but he or she should (hopefully!) get the gist. I think memfrob() is worth mentioning, but it's not sufficiently notable to warrant more than a terse paragraph. I've also moved the "Variants" section to the end, so this technical paragraph will be the last thing a reader gets to in the article. 5) Done. 6) Replaced "newbies" with "newcomers". — Matt 13:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)