The following discussion 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 10:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• ... that Tobias Arlt and Tobias Wendl, who won four Olympic golds between them, are nicknamed "The Two Tobis"?

• Comment: Alts are welcome
• Reviewed: Bolshoy Ice Dome, List of people who have competed in both the Summer and Winter Olympic games

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 19:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

• - Neither of the articles was "BLP unsourced" before the expansion started, so you'll need to expand them a little more to make them eligible for DYK. Mentoz (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Um... They were. External links aren't the same as references. Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter if the section is called "external links" or "references" - when there is a link outside Wikipedia that supports the material (or simply is about the subject) the article cannot be classified as an unsourced BLP. Mentoz (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• External links are different to refs, refs have a cite in the article, and go under the heading 'References' 'Footnotes', 'Notes'. ELs are handy links, but aren't the same as refs. Matty.007 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• You should read this discussion from October 2013 - your opinion differs from the consensus. These articles doesn't need a lot of expansion to meet the 5x requirement. Mentoz (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, the rules aren't very clear. I have asked to check, but if you are, as I suspect, right and there is no consensus to change, I will expand this weekend. Thanks, Matty.007 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• That seems to be the best way forward. Cheers, Mentoz (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Expanded to 5*. Thanks, Matty.007 18:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Tobias Arlt - That article is currently 2030 chars, just above the limit of a 5x expansion as the old version had 398 chars, and I get a feeling that the last 40 characters has been squeezed outjust to meet the 5x requirement. E.g. - why is it mentioned in the lead that he works as a police officers, he is not noted for his civilian job so it might be best to only mention it in the body of the article. And why is it important to mention that "they won in a time of 2 minutes and 45.649 seconds ... ", instead of simply saying "they won one second ahead of ..." ? Nothing cited to FN#3 is actually supported by that citation. The text supported by FN#5 needs a rewrite, as the two sentances are currently to similar to what the source says. FN#4 is a dead link, so I can't check paraphrasing issues - has the article disappeared or did you spell the URL wrong? To be continued .... Mentoz (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Tobias Wendl - That article is currently at 1746 characters, 21 chars above the 5x limit as the previous version had 345 chars. I get the same feeling that the prose is bloated just to meet the 5x requirement, especially when the final edit added ", in Whistler, Canada" after "He won a gold medal at the FIL World Luge Championships 2013" and changed "Their nicknames are" to "Their nickname when competing together is". There is also the same problem related to the Sochi2014.com ref - it doesn't support what it should. The section "Olympics" in both of the article are almost identical, this needs to be rewritten (especially that Wendl won a gold together with Wendl ;p ) - close paraphrasing also counts when copying text from other wiki-articles, even if we wrote them ourselves. Mentoz (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Overall, I believe the articles are too weak to meet the DYK-requirements, if we remove the bloat the articles might even fall below the 1500 characters limit. By reading their articles it looks like these two people are primarly known for things they've done together, similarly to Bernd and Reiner Methe - so what about merging the contents into one single article, and redirecting the other two articles to that one? That way we could remove most of the bloat and get a decent 1500 characters article. This is just a suggestion, and if you want to sort my concerns we might feature this as a two-article hook. Mentoz (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• First off, I think we can discount merging as both pass GNG in their own right, winning two Olympic medals each means that you can't really merge articles. Attempted fix of sourcing issues, though not everything the Sochi ref supported was not in the ref, only two or three things. I think that writing where the championships are is usually done; if it had been done with another edit, would you have questioned it? Also with thimes, it is similar to putting the score of a football match, it is info needed in the article. Removed police info from lead. Reply to Wendl coming soon. Thanks, Matty.007 17:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• With regards to Wendl, rephrased Olympic section, Sochi does in fact support info, and I haad a look at the wording. Thanks, Matty.007 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems this needs another reviewer. Thanks, Matty.007 11:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK IAR? (Meta rule proposal)

To get on the main page you have to be a good article of a decent size and pass through a process full of rules and reviewers and re-reviewers and COI and etc etc. These two article have done that. What I should do is add a DYKtick to this and says lets "Ignore All Rules", but I can't be bothered to add a DYKtick ... lets ignore all rules - including the tick rule. The Wiki won't break! It won't affect the quality... and if some aspiring DYK'er wants to take this route then I think Matty will tell you this is not the easy route to getting your stuff on the main page. So "someone" BE BOLD and stick this on the main page. Whatd'y'think Victuallers (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am ticking it anyway. Both articles qualify on length, no close paraphrasing concerns, neutral, well-sourced etc. The hook is sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both articles do not qualify as 5x expansions, alas. The problem with this double nomination is that the bulk of the expansion for both articles is their new Olympics sections, which are basically the same text with the surnames switched around. This means that the text is new for one article, and a copy in the other. Technically, this would disqualify one of the two—presumably Wendl, since Arlt was expanded first—since the copied text also requires 5x expansion. Right now, the hook could run having one bolded article name, while the other Tobias would be published as a regular wikilink. I'll ask Orlady her opinion on whether IAR should apply here. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, it makes sense to let this one go forward. It could be argued that these guys are notable as a team. However, they aren't identified as a team, but rather are two discrete individuals who competed together. Accordingly, it makes sense to feature the two articles in a single hook. (Ticking as "AGF" because I didn't check the whole review.)

This reminded me of the hook I had in 2008 for two of the three discoverers of the element promethium. The two articles that were highlighted in the hook shared a fair amount of content (compare Lawrence Glendenin and Charles Coryell), but both were treated as DYK-eligible. As with the two Tobiases, these were separate and distinct people who could not be lumped together in a single article, although they had worked together as a team. (FWIW: In 2008 I also had expanded the third article, but I couldn't get it to 5x.) --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)