- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The Librarian (version control system)
- ... that The Librarian allowed computer programmers to move away from keeping their code on decks of punched cards? Source: see footnotes 1, 2, 10 in article
Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Librarian (version control system); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Reviewing. Airborne84 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Will finish the review in the next couple of days. Only copyedits so far. Revert anything you feel strongly about. Airborne84 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Minor issues. Created within last seven days, meets length and other policy requirements, QPQ complete. The hook needs some work. It might be OK if edited slightly. It's a bit wordy. My main concern is that the sources appear to suggest correlation while the hook indicates causation. The sourcing of the hook is not very specific and I had to dig around in the sources for a while. If I'm just missing the passage(s) that indicate causation, please point it out. If not, perhaps it could just be reworded appropriately. In the latter case, I'd recommend proposing an alternate hook as well. Airborne84 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it was sort of in between causation and correlation. How about instead:
- ALT1: ... that during the 1970s, The Librarian was one of the few software packages for the IBM mainframe that excelled both in total number of installations and total sales revenues? Source: see footnote 13 in article
- See if that is preferable. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is sourced. I am not sure how interesting that is to a wide audience (we can get another opinion on that if needed). It is also a bit wordy. What about this for wordiness?
- ALT1a: ... that during the 1970s, The Librarian was among the few IBM mainframe software packages with both high total installations and revenues?
- IMO, the first hook was more interesting. I haven't gone back into the sources, but would they support this version of it?
- Yes. I'm okay with both ALT1a and ALT2. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, after reviewing the sources and material again, I agree that ALT2 is supported. Changing status to DYK ready.
I prefer ALT2 but leave the final decision between that and ALT1a to the promoter. Thanks for your work on this
Wasted Time R.
Airborne84 (
talk) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Minor issues. Created within last seven days, meets length and other policy requirements, QPQ complete. The hook needs some work. It might be OK if edited slightly. It's a bit wordy. My main concern is that the sources appear to suggest correlation while the hook indicates causation. The sourcing of the hook is not very specific and I had to dig around in the sources for a while. If I'm just missing the passage(s) that indicate causation, please point it out. If not, perhaps it could just be reworded appropriately. In the latter case, I'd recommend proposing an alternate hook as well. Airborne84 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)